July 02, 2019

Barbara Kay: School defends teaching transgender to tots, saying, “This is the way the world is now”

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

On last night's episode of The Ezra Levant Show, columnist Barbara Kay called in to talk about transgender ideology in school. In one case, two parents complained up the line, from their child's teacher to the superintendent, who all defended teaching radical, distressing concepts in class. 

(That's just a clip from my show. If you want to watch the full episode, then you'll have to subscribe to Premium Content to get access to my full show. Use COUPON CODE "Gender" to subscribe now and SAVE 25% on an annual subscription.) 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-07-10 13:04:30 -0400
And I’m only too glad to offer you what you want, Al.

Much as you seem to be aspiring to my position by assuming the “Duke” label.
commented 2019-07-10 12:49:53 -0400
Wrong again, Andrew.

Your position is that we must call people by their chosen identity even when it is a result being mentally unbalanced.

My position is that we must treat people who think they are someone or something they obviously are not.

Therefore your position is inconsistent with your professed belief.

My position is consistent with my professed belief.

Therefore my discernment is working fine. Yours obviously is not. Why? Because you are a lefty and hold to the Three Pillars of Leftiedom- the third pillar being, They REFUSE to exercise discernment.

Thank you for being today’s object lesson.
commented 2019-07-10 10:42:08 -0400
You could be accused of the same, “Duke”.

I think youi’re falling prey to one of your pillars [no longer just for] leftiedom, refusal to exercise discernment.
commented 2019-07-09 13:12:14 -0400
There is no dead lock. There is your inconsistency to live up to you stated standards. There is refusal of you to examine evidence and to spout your opinions as truth.
commented 2019-07-09 12:37:32 -0400
I figured it would make you more comfortable to be told what you are by someone else.

Ah, we seem to have a deadlock. What a fascinating turn of events, eh Al?
commented 2019-07-09 02:53:50 -0400
So you are inconsistent with your strategy of letting people decide who they are by their feelings? Time to call the feds to have you charged.
commented 2019-07-08 23:04:53 -0400
Nah, i’ll stick with your preferred strategy whereby you get the pronouns that I decide are acceptable.
commented 2019-07-08 15:01:38 -0400
The proper term of address is, as i stated, MY LORD, DUKE. Why do you insist on insulting me and stigmatizing me by treating me as a commoner?
commented 2019-07-08 12:03:12 -0400
You spend a lot of time accusing me of lying, and very little actually explaining why your perspective is tenable.

I’ve picked out a few things, but it’s pretty thin among the ranting.

“I never said they should not be allowed to live out their lives peacefully. They should not, however, force me to call abnormal, normal.”

I have a question – if you acknowledge their right to live peacefully, and don’t deliberately stigmatize them based on this, or other aspects, of their existence, does that not “normalize” it/? Nobody’s saying you can’t have your own opinions, but if you don’t act on them, does it matter? If you do act on them, do you not infringe upon their right to live their own lives?

You use the term “abnormal”. Does abnormal, or uncommon, or whatever synonym you like, actually mean “bad”? We’re all abnormal in some way.

“The point was to show that the infinitesimal numbers of intersex people makes them an anomaly. Not bad. Not evil. Just an unfortunate anomaly against the background of 98,3%. But you knew that and turned it into lie. As per usual.
"

1.7% is about one in 60. Is that “infinitesimal”? It means that if you have a classroom of 30 students or a workplace with 30 employees, there’s a 40% chance that one falls into that category. (0.983^30 = 0.597) At that rate, it’s virtually inevitable that you encounter them daily.

Why is it “unfortunate”? Why shouldn’t it be something that we just accept?
commented 2019-07-07 15:14:44 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, I notice that you are not addressing me in my preferred way,“My Lord Duke”. Why is that? Shall I be forced to report you?
commented 2019-07-07 15:10:53 -0400
Can’t be answered since the very premise of the question is specious.
-—————
When someone promulgates the idea that babies are parasites, all the while knowing it is in contradiction to all the medical and scientific definitions and evidence then they are lying. It is also obvious that since you know it is a lie you want to believe it- i.e. a lie.

You know it is a lie. So why do you want to believe a lie? Why do you want other people to believe the same lie as you? It is not a specious question. I just proved to you that it is not.

Denying that lie is a lie is also a lie.
commented 2019-07-07 15:06:06 -0400
They are not passing judgement on what is an acceptable social norm, so… no, they are not.
-—————-
Neither was I. You are again putting words in my mouth. Quite a habit, that one among lefties. Gotta fit the lie in somewhere.

We were discussing special pleading and generalizations. You said I was wrong about statistics of intersex people and posited that I was making it up to further my agenda of hate. I pointed out that even intersex people themselves use roughly the same numbers.

So if by simply using the statistical numbers is a hate agenda then their use of the same numbers must also be a hate agenda against themselves.

The point was to show that the infinitesimal numbers of intersex people makes them an anomaly. Not bad. Not evil. Just an unfortunate anomaly against the background of 98,3%. But you knew that and turned it into lie. As per usual.

Why do you want to believe and disseminate lies?

I’ll give you credit again. You are a master of sophistry. You can pack so many lies, innuendo and conflation, irrationality and logical fallacies into a paragraph that it takes two pages to refute the BS.

Repeating lies loud and long does not turn them into truth.

" So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free….

So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed..

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer (Abortionist) from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

John 8: 32-44
commented 2019-07-07 14:53:14 -0400
You’re right, it can’t be answered It’s a loaded question.
-———————
I didn’t say it couldn’t be. You are putting words in my mouth which is called a lie.
It can be answered if you are honest. But you love lies as I have shown to be true over and over. You know- babies are parasites and all.

“Abnormality” or not, do they have the right to live out their lives peacefully?
-—————————————
So you don’t think it is an abnormality even thought all evidence shows it is- hence the quotation marks? Even on just a statistical observation it is. You are conflating abnormal with “bad” not me.

I never said they should not be allowed to live out their lives peacefully. They should not, however, force me to call abnormal, normal.

I acknowledge it’s uncommon, but real.
-————————-
So do I. But real i none instance intersex does not support imaginary transgendered with no chromosomal or physical evidence of any kind. You are engaging in conflation again (aka, a lie). It is a mental problem. To be kind it needs to be recognized as such and remedied if possible. A tumour on the side of one’s head is not normal nor is it an extra head even the owner of it thinks it is. To pretend to agree with someone who thinks it is is to be unkind. It should be surgically removed if possible. Reality may not always be nice but it is kind.

Now, to extend the analogy, what if there’s a kid with six fingers in your kids class?
-—————-
You are intentionally ignoring the point of words. You’re extending it beyond what I expressed and intended. You are again conflating an unusual physical but harmless oddity with a mental problem that causes harm. Harming them further by mutilating them away from the only two agreed upon types in sick and demented.

As do you, but not why “abnormal” is a bad thing.
-——————————————
I didn’t say it was. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. Sometimes it is not a bad thing and sometimes it is. Six toes is abnormal but not abad thing. Being a psychopath is unusual and a very bad thing. It all about theta Third Pillar of Leftiedom: The refusal to exercise discernment.

Should conformity with the “normal” be mandatory in a free society?
-———————-
Should conformity with false recognition of abnormality as normal be mandatory in a “free society”.
commented 2019-07-07 13:52:47 -0400
“Are they trying to marginalize intersex people? Non-Weasel answer, please.”

They are not passing judgement on what is an acceptable social norm, so… no, they are not.

At any rate, you’ve acknowledged that sex isn’t invariably binary, which is really all I was looking for. If we establish sex as not being truly binary, then even if gender is irrevocably tied to sex, it can’t be invariably binary either. (standard treatment now is to wait and let them decide for themselves what they want to be, rather than revise to what’s surgically convenient)
commented 2019-07-07 13:39:19 -0400
“Why do you want to believe and disseminate lies? Give me a non-weasel answer. You know, like I gave you.

I already know the reason and so do you: "

You’re right, it can’t be answered It’s a loaded question. Can’t be answered since the very premise of the question is specious.

“Yes they do. They are called abnormalities like having 6 toes. Yes, a few people have 6 toes or even 4. Thalidomide victims had no arms. That makes them abnormalities. The whole world recognizes this except you. "

“Abnormality” or not, do they have the right to live out their lives peacefully? Should they be forced to comply to five fingered “normalcy” because someone else might find the possibility of polydactyly uncomfortable?

Now, to extend the analogy, what if there’s a kid with six fingers in your kids class? Does teaching the class that that’s OK, amount to pro-polydactyl “indoctrination”?

You’ve put a lot of effort into establishing the definition of “abnormal” (semantic, I personally wouldn’t describe an uncommon, but natural, variation as “abnormal”) I acknowledge it’s uncommon, but real. As do you, but not why “abnormal” is a bad thing. Should conformity with the “normal” be mandatory in a free society?
commented 2019-07-06 21:50:33 -0400
normal
adjective UK ​ /ˈnɔː.məl/ US ​ /ˈnɔːr.məl/

A2 ordinary or usual; the same as would be expected.

general
involving or relating to most or all people, things, or places, especially when these are considered as a unit.

abnormal
adjective UK ​ /æbˈnɔː.məl/ US ​ /æbˈnɔːr.məl/

different from what is usual or average.

aberrant
different from what is typical or usual.

unusual
different from what is usual or expected.

irregular
not according to usual rules or what is expected.

Cambridge Dictionary:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/normal
commented 2019-07-06 21:27:49 -0400
which deliberately excludes information contrary to what you want to be true, is the real pseudoscience, Paddy.
-———————-
Paddy? Is this some kind of insult directed at a person of Irish heritage? I’m not Irish. But you should probably still be reported for hateful expression towards a known and identifiable group.
commented 2019-07-06 21:25:01 -0400
Arguably that’s the most dangerous kind, as it can often be used to deliberately marginalize minority groups. Oh, wait, that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.
-———————-
And there goes our resident lefty reading in motives that were never remotely expressed. But that old god-complex works overtime among them. Lets see what intersex people themselves have to say, shall we:

“We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births. The frequency of individuals receiving “corrective” genital surgery, however, probably runs between 1 and 2 per 1,000 live births (0.1–0.2%).” Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:151–166, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
”http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2%3C151::AID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO;2-F/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2%3C151::AID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO;2-F/abstract These two findings are the most thorough scientific research which exists on the statistical prevalence of congenital intersex traits in humans."

From Intersex Campaign fo Equality

https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/

Are they trying to marginalize intersex people? Non-Weasel answer, please.
commented 2019-07-06 21:18:00 -0400
You are a typical (generalization) lefty. You are master of sophistry so that when authoritative definitions prove you wrong you then move into re-defining words.

What are you trying to achieve with the insults?
-—————————————-
They are not insults. They are observations. Anyone who seriously believes that babies are parasites in the denotative meaning of the word and under scientific/ medical parameters is stupid. If they do not actually believe this but try to convince others of it they are a liar.

I suspect, in your case, it is the latter. You ( like all leftists) are desperately seeking comforting lies. You want a lie to be the truth. Using the McKenna / Goebbels mantra that if you repeat it long enough and loud enough people will believe it won’t work on me or anyone with a passing grasp on reality and truth.

Why do you want to believe and disseminate lies? Give me a non-weasel answer. You know, like I gave you.

I already know the reason and so do you:

Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer [abortionist?] from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies
commented 2019-07-06 21:07:32 -0400
I repeat, Al.
-——-
You will address me as My Lord, Duke, since that is how I identify.
commented 2019-07-06 20:09:29 -0400
My answer is what the medical scientists say. And the 10,00 years of human consensus.

Exceptions exist. You openly admit that yourself.
-——————————————-
Yes they do. They are called abnormalities like having 6 toes. Yes, a few people have 6 toes or even 4. Thalidomide victims had no arms. That makes them abnormalities. The whole world recognizes this except you.

THey don’t go away because you find it inconvenient to acknowledge.
-—————-
And as you said, I did acknowledge them . Just not as normal. They are an aberration, abnormal, atypical, extraordinary, irregular, anomalistic, divergent, non-standard, unusual,

That is why we have these words. Your desire to normalize the abnormal is deeply seated in your desire to believe and disseminate lies.

98.3% is a generalization that reflects what is normal and in no way denies the existence of the abnormal. It just doesn’t allow for the abnormal to be portrayed as normal simply because it exists.
commented 2019-07-06 14:59:09 -0400
““Chromosomal sex: the sex as determined by the presence of the XX (female) or the XY (male) genotype in somatic cells, without regard to phenotypic manifestations.” "

And XXY, XO, XXX individuals? You’re making your hasty generalizations again, by deliberately ignoring important divergences. Your answer then, it is except when it isnt? You didn’t give a direct answer, so I can only speculate as to what you really mean. By the way, I’m curious if you’ve thought much about the practical implications of using that definition, as in it’s not (kind of like keeping trans individuals out of certain bathrooms; it’s not possible without being incredibly invasive to everyone).

“I’d call your pompous pseudo-scientific position a hasty generalization. That would make the lowest possible “generalization” of a “few” examples you accuse me of, 98.3 %.”

Your link is essentially a letter-to-the-editor, which Pubmed does index when they appear in journals also publishing peer-reviewed papers.

How is it pseudo-scientific to point out the existence of something? Science is based on observation. Your generalization, which deliberately excludes information contrary to what you want to be true, is the real pseudoscience, Paddy.

I repeat, Al. Generalization is ignoring the specifics in favour of the general. Generally people are cisgender. But only generally. Exceptions exist. You openly admit that yourself. THey don’t go away because you find it inconvenient to acknowledge.

“Yeah, in those 10,00 years of human history that has been the consensus. 90+ % of evidence is never enough for those who are desperately seeking comforting lies. "

Many cultures, in India, SE Asia, or North America, have historically non-binary sexual categories. I believe we discussed this as one of the flaws of the Eurocentric/Judeo-Christian viewpoint, where that 90% consensus is purely a cultural phenomenon with a generous dose of perception bias. It’s true, as long as you ignore when it isn’t.

“So the 90%+ is a “few observations”? You are stupid and/or deceitful beyond words. "’

No. Hasty generalization seems to be predicated on using an incomplete sample and assuming your observations are invariably true. 90% observations are not 100%; this means that doing so is indeed an example. Arguably that’s the most dangerous kind, as it can often be used to deliberately marginalize minority groups. Oh, wait, that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.

What are you trying to achieve with the insults? Who do you think it reflects worse upon?
commented 2019-07-05 18:55:27 -0400
Of course this is from the person who claims that babies are literally parasites. No surprise there.
commented 2019-07-05 18:54:21 -0400
If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12476264

I’d call your pompous pseudo-scientific position a hasty generalization. That would make the lowest possible “generalization” of a “few” examples you accuse me of, 98.3 %.

Why do you want to believe and disseminate lies?
commented 2019-07-05 18:42:28 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
Everyone must be male or female as defined by genitalia, is rather a generalization.
-—————————————
Yeah, I guess 10,000 years of your favourite tool- "observation- in human history can be dispensed with. The last 5 years of leftists desperately seeking comforting lies is much more reliable authority.

Everyone must be male or female as defined by genitalia, is rather a generalization.
-—————————-
Yeah, in those 10,00 years of human history that has been the consensus. 90+ % of evidence is never enough for those who are desperately seeking comforting lies.

One of the defining characteristics of hasty generalization is projecting specific observations of a few cases onto everyone, whether or not that is actually universally true.
-——————————-

So the 90%+ is a “few observations”? You are stupid and/or deceitful beyond words.

You love lies so much that you completely reverse categories in your love of lies.

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
John 8:44
commented 2019-07-05 18:34:36 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
Can you say, knowing that, and without qualification, that all males are XY and all XY are males, and vice-versa for females? No weasel answers – yes, or no?
-—————————————
This is rich coming from the king of weasel answers. Every answer you give is a weasel answer. But now you are suddenly an absolutist. When did you shift to being an absolutist? No weasel answers.

My non-weasel answer from science- your favourite authority until it disagrees with your preconceived biases.

“Chromosomal sex: the sex as determined by the presence of the XX (female) or the XY (male) genotype in somatic cells, without regard to phenotypic manifestations.”

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+sex
commented 2019-07-05 12:58:10 -0400
Actually, I wonder if you could argue that your perspective is itself a hasty generalization.

Everyone must be male or female as defined by genitalia, is rather a generalization. One of the defining characteristics of hasty generalization is projecting specific observations of a few cases onto everyone, whether or not that is actually universally true. Projecting cisgender expectations onto everyone, whether true or not, seems to actually fall into this category.
commented 2019-07-05 12:53:57 -0400
You’re trying, at least. I don’t think it is a “hasty generalization”. How big a sample differentiates “hasty generalization” from real phenomenon? This one doesn’t seem to have a very strong definition, are you merely looking for plausible deniability?

Semenya’s case is indeed a single instance, but I wanted to provide a tanglble example, for the simple reason that you seem to struggle with intangible or statistical concepts In aggregate there are millions of people around the world that are biologically not XX female nor XY male – around 1/500-1/1000 people meet even this bluntest criterion let alone the subtler variants.

Can you say, knowing that, and without qualification, that all males are XY and all XY are males, and vice-versa for females? No weasel answers – yes, or no?