Very good essay, and nice analogy between "gender ideology" and the "Nxnxivm cult".
But, in both those cases there may be some scientific justification for the underlying "theories" or models. Although the latter's use of "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)" may be even more suspect than the former case since it too is hardly more than "pseudoscience":
But I think you and too many "gender-criticals" are missing a bet, if not contributing to the problem, by failing to recognize that "gender" is, at best, nothing more than a synonym for a great many sexually dimorphic personality traits, roles, and behaviors:
You seem to be a bit of an idiot, correct me if I’m wrong. But all gender criticals, by definition, understand gender as the cultural meaning societies give to sex, including superficial sex stereotypes. You really should be more educated about what gender critical believe before commentating. I’d prefer you just don’t follow and comment unless you can do so with some rudimentary understanding of our position
Methinks you're clearly wrong on that epithet, one which might more justifiably be applied to too many so-called "gender-criticals".
Though it seems a bit presumptuous of you to be speaking for the whole tribe which clearly includes many additional "sects", many of whom aren't quite as dogmatic on various aspects. For instance, you rather imperiously insist that GCs "understand gender as the cultural meaning societies give to sex, including superficial sex stereotypes" while many in that tribe more or less accept that many of those "stereotypes" of behaviours, personality traits, and roles derive from bedrock biological differences between the sexes.
For example, see this recent post, and my comments thereon, by Eva Kurilova, a Canadian lesbian Substacker and self-described "gender-critical", this bit in particular:
EK: "Some might call these differences 'stereotypes,' but, to me, it is obvious that our differences go deeper. No doubt much of what 'gender identity' is based on is nothing but shallow stereotypes and fashion choices, but men and women have behavioral, emotional, and psychological differences on average as well."
To emphasize the point I elaborated on there, those "behavioural, emotional, and psychological differences on average" are what less doctrinaire "gender criticals" more or less accept as "gender".
But you and too many other GCs seem not to have progressed much beyond the view that the whole concept of "gender" was something hatched in the inner sanctums of "The Patriarchy!!11!!" 🙄 for the sole purpose of "oppressing women". Too unwilling to recognize that biological bedrock which is actually contributing to the whole problem. As Helen Dale quite reasonably put it, "the transcult is the bastard child of feminism", largely because of its rather "obstinate" unwillingness to "take biology seriously":
No doubt that you and many other GCs have some justified grievances about, at least, the more pernicious and toxic aspects of gender and gender-identity ideology which I have a great deal of sympathy for -- your "Who are the Gender Criticals?" in particular:
Though your own "I don’t use gender as a word that relates to the body, sex is of the body, gender is of the culture" underlines Dale's quite justified criticisms about "not taking biology seriously". Gender is most certainly not just a matter of culture -- there are many biological roots or underpinnings to those many personality stereotypes which show a great deal of variation by sex.
But, in a nutshell, the problem is that, however one defines gender and gender-identity, there's some reason to argue that, at best, the whole concept is only marginally better than phrenology, astrology, and Chinese fortune cookies for characterizing and describing personality, behavioural, and psychological differences between men and women. Too many seem to lose sight of the fact -- or intentionally muddy the waters for fun and profit -- that there's a profound difference between, on the one hand, a female gender or female gender-identity and, on the other hand, a female sex. Not sure whether too many GCs -- feminists in general -- aren't more a part of that problem than of the solution.
You don’t know what you are talking about and I can only think that is because you are not intelligent enough to understand the concepts. I will relieve you from the burden of commenting on my stuff in the future
Thanks for the heads up, it wasn't showing as a second series here so I've just finished watching it 10 mins ago. I couldn't quite grasp how long that sex gang had been going on, I suspect almost certainly from the start in some way, and when the branding started and how many women were branded. Taping everything to show you have nothing to hide is quite the tactic to gain trust.
Very good essay, and nice analogy between "gender ideology" and the "Nxnxivm cult".
But, in both those cases there may be some scientific justification for the underlying "theories" or models. Although the latter's use of "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)" may be even more suspect than the former case since it too is hardly more than "pseudoscience":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
But I think you and too many "gender-criticals" are missing a bet, if not contributing to the problem, by failing to recognize that "gender" is, at best, nothing more than a synonym for a great many sexually dimorphic personality traits, roles, and behaviors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
You seem to be a bit of an idiot, correct me if I’m wrong. But all gender criticals, by definition, understand gender as the cultural meaning societies give to sex, including superficial sex stereotypes. You really should be more educated about what gender critical believe before commentating. I’d prefer you just don’t follow and comment unless you can do so with some rudimentary understanding of our position
Methinks you're clearly wrong on that epithet, one which might more justifiably be applied to too many so-called "gender-criticals".
Though it seems a bit presumptuous of you to be speaking for the whole tribe which clearly includes many additional "sects", many of whom aren't quite as dogmatic on various aspects. For instance, you rather imperiously insist that GCs "understand gender as the cultural meaning societies give to sex, including superficial sex stereotypes" while many in that tribe more or less accept that many of those "stereotypes" of behaviours, personality traits, and roles derive from bedrock biological differences between the sexes.
For example, see this recent post, and my comments thereon, by Eva Kurilova, a Canadian lesbian Substacker and self-described "gender-critical", this bit in particular:
EK: "Some might call these differences 'stereotypes,' but, to me, it is obvious that our differences go deeper. No doubt much of what 'gender identity' is based on is nothing but shallow stereotypes and fashion choices, but men and women have behavioral, emotional, and psychological differences on average as well."
https://www.evakurilova.com/p/gender-identity-is-the-product-of/comment/57989827
To emphasize the point I elaborated on there, those "behavioural, emotional, and psychological differences on average" are what less doctrinaire "gender criticals" more or less accept as "gender".
But you and too many other GCs seem not to have progressed much beyond the view that the whole concept of "gender" was something hatched in the inner sanctums of "The Patriarchy!!11!!" 🙄 for the sole purpose of "oppressing women". Too unwilling to recognize that biological bedrock which is actually contributing to the whole problem. As Helen Dale quite reasonably put it, "the transcult is the bastard child of feminism", largely because of its rather "obstinate" unwillingness to "take biology seriously":
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/a-common-humanity-or-bust
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
No doubt that you and many other GCs have some justified grievances about, at least, the more pernicious and toxic aspects of gender and gender-identity ideology which I have a great deal of sympathy for -- your "Who are the Gender Criticals?" in particular:
https://msediewyatt.substack.com/p/who-are-the-gender-criticals
Though your own "I don’t use gender as a word that relates to the body, sex is of the body, gender is of the culture" underlines Dale's quite justified criticisms about "not taking biology seriously". Gender is most certainly not just a matter of culture -- there are many biological roots or underpinnings to those many personality stereotypes which show a great deal of variation by sex.
But, in a nutshell, the problem is that, however one defines gender and gender-identity, there's some reason to argue that, at best, the whole concept is only marginally better than phrenology, astrology, and Chinese fortune cookies for characterizing and describing personality, behavioural, and psychological differences between men and women. Too many seem to lose sight of the fact -- or intentionally muddy the waters for fun and profit -- that there's a profound difference between, on the one hand, a female gender or female gender-identity and, on the other hand, a female sex. Not sure whether too many GCs -- feminists in general -- aren't more a part of that problem than of the solution.
You don’t know what you are talking about and I can only think that is because you are not intelligent enough to understand the concepts. I will relieve you from the burden of commenting on my stuff in the future
Thanks for the heads up, it wasn't showing as a second series here so I've just finished watching it 10 mins ago. I couldn't quite grasp how long that sex gang had been going on, I suspect almost certainly from the start in some way, and when the branding started and how many women were branded. Taping everything to show you have nothing to hide is quite the tactic to gain trust.