What are women's rights? Women demanded equal rights with men, for decade after decade after decade. So any right a woman has, a man has too. For example - why do we have segregated prisons? To protect women from assault is the normal answer. So women get protection men do not. How equal is that? It isn't so to get the equality you demanded we need to desegregate prisons, sports etc! So what do you want ladies - unequal protections or equality? You can't have both!
I think the autocracy vs democracy modern distinction flattens the politics of Plato and Aristotle. Plato spent a lot more time criticizing tyranny than democracy. I would even venture to say that one of his strongest critiques of democracy is that they degenerate into tyrannies. So he is the most concerned about one type of autocracy (tyranny) even while he defends another kind of autocracy (aristocracy).
9:29 going to have to strongly disagree with you about most men have not been hit by a woman. Boys grow up being constantly hit by girls, and men are bit by women, it just doesnt hurt very much so we let them get away with it, and they grow up thinking it is ok to do it. It may be playful, but is sometimes malicious, and can be anywhere on the scale between those two point's....but i'll say it again, most men have been hit by women, and that is not true the other way around
Sadly, the reverse is true. Whichever government you have, statistics will be similar in all countries of the western world and anecdotally greater again out of it.
Helen Joyce is an editor of ECONOMICS. You have to have a hack on rather than someone who is actually qualified just to get the responses you want. GTFOH
The prefixes "cis" and "trans" are from Latin: "this side of" and "the other side of", respectively. In the context of chemistry, cis indicates that the functional groups (substituents) are on the same side of some plane, while trans conveys that they are on opposing (transverse) sides.
substituents meaning an atom or group of atoms taking the place of another atom or group or occupying a specified position in a molecule. displacement of alkyl substituents" Transverse meaning situated or extending across something. "a transverse beam supports the dashboard"
This wonderful orator, is one of the most reasonable and compelling voices in the UK, on any subject. It is a loss to the country that she is not given a space on BBC and ITV.
I was on ebay to list an item to sell. It asks to select a dept. The choices I was offered were men teens and unisex. Why is there no womens dept. Thank you Sal for your guts .....only a woman would have this sort of guts xxxx
She mentioned a UN wmn's convention. I wonder what all the many UN wmns teams/organisations/forums are saying on this subject. How far captured are they? By who? Who's funding it?
How disappointing that she wouldn't tell us more about the dissertation thesis she wrote on the subject of dishonesty role in ethics - I was hoping she'd relate that to the current situation
Hollywood is toxic. More toxic at the centres of cliques, less so at the amorphous freewheeling mix. Toxic for wmn; toxic for men. Hence, Hollywood attracts & retains toxic wmn and toxic men. Some people find their preferred, or most compatible, level of toxicity.
I did that crossing in Wellington and it was really really heaving. I didn't feel seasick but I was getting a bit nervous and my face showed it. I was travelling alone and some lovely, kind, older New Zealand woman must have noticed and came over to talk to me and calmed me down. It's a fond memory of my travels over there. I had no idea until this video though that it was known for being one of the craziest crossings in the world. Interesting. :)
Why don't women want equality? For example segregated prisons - why? Simply put, to protect women. But that is not equal is it? Giving women extra protections that male prisoners do not get is explicitly unequal. But no one cares, do they, Because It benefits women. Same with segregated sports - why? So women can be protected and women can compete. Again explicitly unequal treatment between the sexes - but it benefits women, so no equality needed!
A heartfelt ❤ THANK YOU Sall for what you are doing for womankind. I don't think most people realise that we are in dangerous times. They feel so superior and pleased with themselves for supporting this ideology. We now live in an upside-down world. Anna
I think the nz media is captured by trans ideology.. i see nothing reported unless its about transphobia towards trans people… Im sure half these people supporting these media companies don’t have a clue about wants really happening and why, they just go along with anyone that calls transphobia
Wow! This is the most comprehensive talk I've heard concerning this issue. Especially for those who say/think this does only affect an itsy bitsy tiny ("vulnerable") minority. It affects all and everyone if thruth, sanity, freedom of thought and freedom of speech is attacked. And then add all womens' rights to that.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
12:00 authoritarian: essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace. authority: the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology. The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires. Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place. Unfortunately, *authority* is often conflated with the notion of *power* , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma). P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Boghossian starts out by proclaiming how important it is to engage with opposite viewpoints and then proceeds to lable those viewpoints as "mentally ill." (Does anybody remember when he was calling people with religious beliefs "delusional" and said they needed psychiatric help? Apparently, those people now contribute some value to society, and it is the "woke" who are the ones who are "mentally ill.") And this is from a guy who advertises himself as "reaching across the divide." Seriously? Then he claims that the US is exporting such "wokism" to the rest of the world, when in fact, what is being exported is this kind of rightwing populism. I don't believe it was the "woke" who won an astounding victory in the recent EU elections but rather a collection of rightwing populists who expound some of these very same talking points. Boghossian closes by cackling at the criticism he received over his recent positions on women and violence and repeating his boast about his daughter carrying a gun. He. shows no sign of even attempting to take in and engage at all with any of this. I shouldn't be surprised anymore because this is what he has been doing for years now, but it does mystify me why anybody takes him seriously.
Thank you for this discussion ❤ I tried to watch the discussion you’re discussing. It didn’t seem to be grounded in reality. It was as if the alleged concerns regarding free speech are such things as universities suppressing speech that supports gender ideology and suppressing discussions about racism in research. One speaker said there is no problem because gender ideology is celebrated at universities and it must be celebrated. (What kind of person wouldn’t love a rainbow, after all?) She rejected any mention of transgender issues, as if concerns about women’s spaces and pediatric gender medicine are simply offensive. The correct term is gender diversity which had better warm your heart because it’s a rainbow. Another speaker said she is opposed to eugenics and vowed to speak out against all of those she faces who support eugenics at universities. Is there a eugenics movement on campuses today? How would they feel if they were required to embrace and celebrate Christian ideology on campus? Are they aware of the grievance studies hoax that revealed a problem with the validity of gender research published in some disciplines? Are they aware of the academic whose research on race and policing was rejected because it lacked enough racism? More than one speaker stated that they understand that they are wholly respected and invulnerable because they are White men - in an attempt to be self-deprecating. Ironically, making this statement is precisely how these men keep a secure hold on their position and power in this political climate. They do it at the expense of less prestigious White men who are not privileged. It was suggested that, when debating, members of a marginalized group must be protected. Why shouldn’t all be protected? No human being is immune from disrespectful and dehumanizing statements. One speaker categorized beliefs as either progressive or regressive. My guess is that he doesn’t identify as a Regressive. Instead, what if we were open to maintaining existing ideas and practices (conservatism) or developing new ideas and practices (liberalism) instead of assuming that one approach is inherently right and good?
I completely agree with concerns about sex segregated spaces and sports in the sense that those who simply identity as the opposite sex without having done any medical transitioning having access to their desired spaces/sports is problematic. However, Joyce's position on not even acknowledging transsexual women as women is blatantly transphobic. Her argument based solely on sexual abuse crimes fails to address the factor of misandry in UK anti-rape laws where having a penis is required for the perpetrator to be charged and convicted with rape/sexual abuse crimes. Regardless what the statistics are they are skewed. Much like how if you make certain actions or objects illegal suddenly there is an uptick in crime statistics. Cis women often get away with sexual abuse, especially on men, due to this loophole. She has even refused to acknowledge the existence of intersex individuals. Regardless of any ideology, refusal to acknowledge the exceptions to the sex binary in mammals is harmful. They exist in a natural state, but get harassed by the anti-trans reactionaries because people like Joyce refuse to acknowledge them or often treat them like "freaks of nature." Also, her fixation on trans women indicate her concerns are not in good faith but are deeply rooted in her misandry. TEFRs often center their beliefs around second and third wave radical feminists such as Valerie Solanas (who failed to assassinate Andy Warhol) argued in favor of genocide against the male sex in her SCUM manifesto, and Ti-Grace Atkinson who argued in favor of overthrowing the world governments and establishing governments founded on "political lesbianism." This is why feminists like Joyce are so fearful of transgenderism and transgender women because their ideology is sex based. They have an unhealthy obsession with the female sex. In their minds biological males are always the aggressor and biological females are always the victim. You can see this in her narrative here. Transgender ideology has become somewhat of a state-sponsored religion in some aspects. Declared gender identity is not the same as transsexualism, therefore just because you declare your gender as man or woman should not grant one access to opposite sex spaces or sports. Language policing is also a problem. Trans people can request preferred pronouns within reason. He/his, she/hers, and yes even they/them (yes it is not going to kill anyone to respect singular they pronouns) are acceptable expectations in polite society. But neopronouns are to be kept within trans spaces because expecting the general public to adopt an infinite amount of new pronouns is not helpful towards acceptance in any way. People should not be banned from public spaces, online platforms, fired from their jobs, or face criminal charges for not using someone's preferred pronouns (though job wise, expect human resources to interfere if it becomes antagonistic behavior). This is what should be challenged. Just because there are trans radicals does not mean we should throw out the entire concept of transgenderism.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
