Gender Ideologues Have Co-opted the Campaign Against Conversion Therapy


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://quillette.com/2022/06/04/gender-ideologues-have-co-opted-the-campaign-against-conversion-therapy/

“This conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity in the context of conversion therapy must be rejected, because these markers of identity are completely distinct. Indeed, many of the same progressive activists who campaign for laws such as C-4 have been emphasizing that exact same distinction for years. And so it is disingenuous for them to conflate the two as a means to stigmatize (or, as in this Canadian case, possibly criminalize) parents, educators, therapists, or doctors who may have legitimate good-faith concerns when it comes to transition.”

The legislation is very clear that exceptions exist so this seems an unnecessary fear.

"Any effects that the offence may have on Charter rights are tailored to the objective of preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, as described above. The proposed offence would be limited to “practices, treatments or services”, all of which imply an established or formalized intervention. It would not criminalize conversations in which a person expresses an opinion on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, unless that conversation forms part of an intervention designed to make a person heterosexual or cisgender. Interventions that support an individual’s exploration and development of their own identity would not be prohibited, provided that they are not based on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another."

“But I still disagreed with the approach reflected in the new law—combining sexual orientation and gender identity in one ban. Sexual orientation relates to same-sex versus opposite-sex attraction. Gender identity, we are told, describes an inner, subjective sense of gender that apparently supersedes biological sex. I expressed caution at this mixing of these two incompatible ideas.”

“Gay men and women also exist. And our reality is based on biological sex. Gay people are “same-sex” attracted. This is what it means to be gay. Even homophobes understand this: The conversion therapies that many of us have endured were clearly intended to change our attraction from same-sex to opposite-sex.”

The two maybe distinct concepts as being gay encompasses same sex attraction but that’s just as much an inner sense of feeling that maybe be subject to confusion as gender identity is. The fact that its based on an association to biological sex rather than identity is irrelevant.

I have never agreed with (or even properly understood) such slogans as “Trans women are real women,” or, for that matter, “Trans men are real men” (although, interestingly, it is telling how much more common the former type of slogan is, as compared to the latter). People who identify as “trans” exist, in the obvious sense of being as “real” as you and me. But trans women are not the same as biological females. And while I’m no biologist, the word “woman” has always been defined and understood as referring to natal females. Biological males who identify as trans women, and biological females who are women, are not the same. This is what’s called reality.

This slogan was never intended to suggest that trans identifying females are identical to biological females rather they are just as valid & legitimate as biological females & as such are a kind of woman that should be accepted under the umbrella hood of woman. Like most political slogans this isn’t meant to be understood in a purely literal or definitional sense but to provoke attention & consideration. If trans females actually believed they were biological females they wouldn’t bother with any modifications so it’s a preposterous but convenient misrepresentation often invoked to maintain the trans delusion trope.

Whilst it’s true the concept of woman traditionally was associated with biological females, common acceptance via usage has established a duel understanding of this term. Words & concepts routinely evolve over time usually to accommodate functionality via multiple interpretations depending on context & ‘woman’ is no different. The word & concept of “chair” has evolved to encompass both a seat & a position but no ‘confusion’ or ‘erasure’ of understanding arises because humans are cognitively capable of such sophistications.

“It is antithetical to healthy counselling to push a patient in any one direction—including the direction of “affirmation.” The best that any counsellor can do is bear witness to a patient’s process, their grief, confusion, anger, sadness, bewilderment, depression, or despair, even to their self-destruction, but then, hopefully, maybe their mourning, revelations, and healing.”

Although it can certainly be appreciated that therapists can & do overstep their boundaries the gender affirmation model was never intended to be prescriptive &/or coercive but rather a patient centred supportive approach. Whilst it’s true counsellors in general are supposed to bear witness they are also required to offer support/services where appropriate in accordance with accepted standards.

1 Like

A war is brewing between heterosexuals, LGB and gender critical feminists on one side, and the woke Trans/Queer +++ types who espouse the scientifically absurd Gender/Queer Theory on the other.

Pick a gender, anyone you like. Forget about biological sex, that’s just what you were “assigned” at birth. If you don’t like male or female, then make up your own gender, and don’t worry, you can change it as often as you like.

Heterosexuals, LGB and women face an existential threat. Their natural biological identity and their political rights are based on the gender binary → humans come in two sexes, male and female.

They say no to biological men in women’s prisons, women’s rape centres and women’s bathrooms. They say no to biological males competing against females in women’s sports.

The woke are insidious, they are always changing the definition of terms.

Co-opting “conversion therapy” now means that if you don’t allow a groomed and deluded child to take puberty blocking chemicals and have their sex organs surgically removed – then you will be persecuted by the state and the media.

Merely suggesting that your child should see a psychologist about their gender dysphoria could send you to prison.

Trudeau isn’t merely a woke high priest. He lives to see these children mutilated and to destroy their lives – as he claims to be championing their rights. He’s a disease in human form. Most of the people in the World Economic Forum are freaks.

There should be Nuremberg trials over this.

7 Likes

The key issue, only hinted at, is that neither same-sex attraction NOR trannie delusions are always set.

There is ROHA - rapid onset homosexual attraction.

Many people want to be gay because it is cool today.

So, if you are gay, and sure of it, go with it. I know a lot of people, my child included, who are “gay-identified”, but I do not think they are gay. But here’s the deal - if you are gay, you do not want to mutilate yourself. Trannie delusions lead to mutilation. That’s a key difference.

3 Likes

Fucking lol these groomers pushing this on kids would never live up to their own standard. Project project project. It’s getting stale.

No they arent. Not as females. Not as women.

Shenanigans. In academia, corporate, education and entertainment this is enforced with dissenters being exiled as outcasts. In more working class or rural places this isn’t commonly accepted because there’s no negative consequences of a farmer or a crane operator actually telling the truth. Your “common acceptance” is manufactured. It’s also very Eurocentric of you to say this. The rest of the world isn’t buying it anymore than the people here who have to pretend to buy it in order to keep their jobs.

Or to enforce conformity.

Bullshit. The two meanings of chair have nothing to do with another. There is no blurring of any lines with such a dual meaning as there is with your political language which is designed to allow you to shift between meanings and traverse such blurred lines as you choose. This isn’t an evolution of the language it’s a calculated dismemberment.

4 Likes

The spectrum: straight >> homosexual >> trans could be described as: normal/real >> abnormal/real >> abnormal/unreal. The author says that the ‘line’ should be drawn between the last two but I’d draw it between the first two. Once homosexuality is pretended to be natural and fully acceptable we are already in fantasy land and the slide into deeper fantasies would seem to be inevitable.

Once you cut your anchor line it is unclear how far you will drift. It’s a judgement call tho, no doubt trans is the deeper perversion/delusion than homosexuality but it is a strain to say that anti-gay conversion therapy should be a crime and try to explain why the same case can’t be made for anti-trans interventions.

They say that coming soon is the Affirmation of Schizophrenia – once mental Gender fantasies are considered just as ‘legitimate’ as biological reality then surely the mental states of the Schitzophrenic are just as legitimate as any other mental state. If someone Identifies as Napoleon then surely they really are Napoleon. Trans-Napoleons are real Napoleons!

Yabut in this case we are accommodating dysfunctionality. Look up ‘functionality’ in the dictionary. Now, explain to us how a trans-penis can be considered to be functional.

Sometimes a second meaning is a clear extrapolation – a pilot considers the cloud ceiling which is an obvious extrapolation from the ceiling in a room. But what the wokies do is reverse the meaning of words. discrimination is the opposite of Discrimination and racism is the opposite of Racism. Freedom is slavery.

4 Likes

Yes you are correct. I take it back, chair(person) does have something to do with the word chair(seat) because it’s the person who sits at the head chair on the board.

What I mean is that no one is going to confuse the two. If I say, “have a seat on the chair” you’re not going to wonder if I want you to sit on the thing with four legs, a seat and a backrest or if I want you to sit on top of the chairman of the board.

Ceiling, same thing. Pilots know what they mean in context.

Woman, not so. “That person is a woman” could mean either “that person is someone who does, did, or will produce ova (or would save for developmental or genetic anomalies)” or it could mean “that man pretends to be someone who does, did, or will produce ova (or would save for developmental or genetic anomalies)”.

Ella says there’s no chance for confusion since we know the difference between chair and chair depending on context. It just doesn’t follow. It’s a terrible argument and that is why people like her need to enforce this with harsh consequences precisely because it’s not an organic evolution of the language but rather a power play at the expense of having functional language. They can’t convince people of their obvious bullshit so they need to compel people into compliance with various threats or emotional blackmail.

@Ella-B you say the language is evolving to be more functional. But what is this new definition of woman? And how to ensure people don’t mix up the two meanings?

You won’t have an answer to that, because the whole point is to conflate the two meanings. That’s why “transwomen are women” is the slogan despite there already being a myriad of other things to call them (transwomen, t-girls, ladyboys, etc.), they won’t settle for anything other than just “women” because womanhood as we’ve traditionally known it is exactly what they want to infiltrate and usurp. You are covering for the most misogynistic movement of our lifetimes. As someone who loves women, I cannot approve.

Hey how about a joke.

Q - How does a transwoman unscrew a light bulb?

A - He reaches up, grabs the bulb with his hand, and waits for the whole world to revolve around him.

6 Likes

Religious fanatix (that’s the new spelling) cannot be reasoned with. To try is utterly futile.

2 Likes

Here’s a good thread explaining why the trans terminology of woman is complete horse shit.

They always go to the fringes to find an exception (in this case, say intersex hermaphrodites) and then try to use that fringe exception to discount the whole since there aren’t solid boundaries. But everything is blurred around the edges. Night and day don’t cease to exist as legitimate categories just because the shift between isn’t instantaneous. The reality of the in-between phases of dusk and dawn doesn’t mean day can be night in a hedonistic free for all which erases all boundaries between categories as we know them.

As they conclude in the following thread, the only reason these people know to go to the fringes for their examples is because they obviously do know where the (yes, blurry) line is. They go right to it every time.

2 Likes

I know that. I do it for fun.

1 Like

We’re on the same side of this. The woke are deliberately trying to destroy the language.

And is it not surpassing strange that it is so called feminists who lead the charge in this cancellation of their own sex? – or its subordination to men anyway? Feminists in fact hate women, or so it would seem.

It’s like playing chess against the computer except that the computer usually looses.

But it’s also feminists (the so called TERFS) who are on the front lines defending against this charge.

Remember back when Ella used to argue that feminism was synonymous with womanhood? It seems all this indecisiveness about gender is a point in her favor in that regard.

Hey, Ella, what do you want for dinner tonight?

True enough. And we, the Patriarchy, ally with them. Strange times. But we see how fragile are the alliances among the Victims – they will turn on each other in a heartbeat. Once the common enemy, whitey, has been cancelled, I dare say each Victim Identity will turn on all the others. Who will be the Supreme Victim?

2 Likes

That’s just an opinion.

Most people in modern societies understand the difference in terminology between a ‘trans woman’ & ‘biological woman’ ……whether they agree with that terminology is not the point. My comment was a response to the author’s alleged ‘confusion’ the usage of ‘trans woman’ causes.

More accuracy. Words & concepts more often take off because they connect with human understanding of reality. You assume lack of autonomy. ‘Groomer’ mentality is a staple of yours isn’t it? Wishful propagandist thinking perhaps?

Perceiving the world only through the lens of authoritarianism seems to be another ongoing theme of yours. Unless everyone else conforms to your perceptions ‘authoritarianism’ is to blame. Pot kettle….

But there is a commonality trans women share with biological women & that’s traditional gender expression & roles as long accepted by society. Steam & ice are very different but share an association with water & as such are both kinds of water.

An adult female that can either be a natal/biological female or a natal/biological male whose gender identity is of a traditional female. Simples.

They ‘settle’ for trans woman routinely so where’s conflation? Stop deliberately conflating the slogan with common usage. I’m personally acquainted with two trans women & one trans man all of which call themselves those terms when relevant. If you watch or listen to any trans personalities or activists they either introduce themselves or are introduced as trans woman/man. And the same terminology is routinely used when describing trans individuals in print. Using a prefix to further describe an individual is used as differentiation all the time so what’s the big deal? ie black woman, pregnant woman, working woman etc. See? No confusion between classes of women.

Gimme a break white night. Sure it’s not loving what women can do for you than loving them in all their incarnations? All this emphasis on ‘confusion’ a freudian slip? Not being able to tell them apart from the ‘real deal’ problematic ……for you?

Humans have a remarkable ability to deny reality as it is. Consider that the completely farcical proposition that a man was born, crucified and rose from the dead was not only NOT overturned on its head at the first hearing of the tale but instead, it inspired one of the longest lasting delusions in human history. So too, the adherents of some weird Arab merchant who talked to an angel in a cave… not unlike Joseph Smith and the Urimm and Thumimm… yet Muhammed is afforded some respect… perhaps from fear while the Mormons are openly mocked… At least Jesus was dead when his “followers” ruined his efforts…

And so, we have people like those on this forum who will double down on their inane gender bullshit and nothing will ever come of it. The woke will not go down anytime soon. If something as ludicrous as Islam and Christianity can survive this long, then belief in pseudo-scientific gibberish like this can last millennia… not unlike communism. The woke are here to stay. It may be best to treat them like one would treat any other fantastical, fanatical cult… with circumspection…

1 Like

Wokeness is a state religion imposed upon us like sharia in an Islamic theocracy.

We must obey or we will be persecuted and punished.

1 Like

Indeed. But we can ignore its adherents in public and resist its maxims in our private lives… as many do in sharia states. The call to prayer is the braying of an ass… loud and persistent… but with much the same effect on the heavens.

It’s just a matter of time before our own family members betray us for not being woke. The state can take it from there. I’m already seeing this among my friends.

Scotland put forward a bill recently to punish people for what they say in the privacy of their own homes. Kids are using social media to ruin the lives of their parents. This is communism/Nazism.

With technology the way it is these days, unless sane people push back and hard, the only place we will be free is in the grave.

1 Like

We’ve been here before. In the end, the woke become their own creed and will spend most of their time policing themselves. There will always be missionaries, no doubt. And as is evidenced in this forum, converts are often the most ardent supporters of any faith; and often the most reckless, stupid and fanciful in their fanatixism. But like all faith systems, they are as open to schism as any other. A schism will appear. And soon.

1 Like