Demi Lovato
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
At the Teens4Truth Conference, Ft. Worth, TX, Nov. 18, 2017. A physician who was in the Johns Hopkins Univ. Hospital group where "transgender medicine" was developed describes the lies, bad medicine, and fraud behind that movement. Quentin Van Meter, MD, FCP is a pediatric endocrinologist. He is a Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Well, I wasn't finished, since you made a number of erroneous accusations against me.
So I won't bring anything new up .
But WORDS are insanely important. Words are not games.
No, those weren't examples of force unless, as I said, you think all social interaction and all law is inherently the use of force. (There are people who take this philosophical position and if this is the case with you, then fine.) The fact the only one you cared to specify didn't happen also seems to be a problem for your argument.
You mean the Jordon Peterson who famously wasn't fired? That one?
Only thing I can find on Laurentian University involves them firing hundreds of professors and gutting the Faculty of Arts, which somehow doesn't seem likely to be a hotbed of people refusing to "tote the leftist party line".
I am sure you can provide me with the real scandal. (There may also be more than one Laurentian Universtiy of course and it could just be the recent scandal is making anything else difficult to find.)
The government has never regulated forms of address in the chamber? I find that hard to believe.
But, again, I don't know what law you are referring to. I don't seem to find any such reference to such a law.
You're comparing being fired to terrorism now? Damn, you are a snowflake.
But this rash of people being fired for their political beliefs? How widespread is it?
I mean, yes, people have been doing this since forever and it is shitty.
Is your only complaint that now someone might do it to you?
Do you support "at-will" work? Do you support any right for an employer to fire anyone?
Under what conditions? Do you think employees should have strong support for bringing suits of wrongful termination?
Because if you suddenly discovered that sometimes people get fired for shitty reasons, I hate to break it to you that this isn't a new thing.
I would be interested in hearing of a case of someone being fired for using the wrong pronoun with someone though, I haven't actually heard of such a case.
I see you haven't been following the science, but that's also irrelevant.
Science can inform society's views, but it doesn't dictate them.
Since science itself is a social consensus process, it isn't surprising that it is also often contested and society needs to make decisions within those boundaries.
Wow, that's a lot of projection there.
No. As above, I am pointing out that pretending this is new and suddenly NOW is an outrage is disingenuous. Unless you are saying that you are intending to defend people to not be fired for being non-gender conforming (a position I doubt given all you have said).
It's fascinating to see how easily triggered you are. You really do see this as some kind of attack on civilization itself.
Still, you are right. A major point of any democracy is to find ways to negotiate conflicts between invested groups in a society without it turning violent.
That means, sometimes, that you disagree profoundly and if the majority of the people insist on a culture and norms that you cannot abide you are faced with a difficult decision about your place in society.
I hope you find your way to acceptance.
Netflix series, actually.
Didn't realize they had announced the rest of the cast.
There's some good people in there and a few choices I'm not so sure about. (Patton Oswalt?)
Dictionary Meaning
Force
Coercion or Compulsion
If a person is being Coerced to do something against their will by threat of retaliation, that is Force, and every one of my examples fits that definition.
Not all forms of force requires a gun.
You mean The Jordan Peterson whom U of T sanctioned and tried to fire, until he went public and got Lawyers involved? Yeah. That one.
All that is online to find right now is the massive lay offs and financial disaster of the University, but they had multiple accounts of Firing, and attempting to fire Professors for their non left leaning political views a couple years ago. The stories were covered on CP24 at the time.
Try Bill C-16
No. I'm projecting the logic you laid down comparing such to simple critiquing.
And one needs only looks as far as Disney and Gina Carano to find an example. There are many more, but why should I have to do all the research for you.
The science behind the cellular biology of Males and Females has been pretty consistent, and I don't think has changed radically in the last 5 years.
And Science most definitely is not a SOCIAL consensus process. The scientific process of theorizing, and then conducting controlled experimentation that either proves or disproves the theory, has absolutely nothing to do with SOCIAL consensus. Even Scientific peer review is based on data obtained through objective measurement that is repeatable.
That statement alone pretty much nullifies everything else you have said.
Absolutely I would defend people to not be fired for being "non-gender conforming". Just as I would defend people to not being fired for the colour of their skin. My Issue is not with their lifestyle, my issue is with them demanding that I have to re-orient the very building blocks of the English language around their lifestyle.
This would be no different than a group of Star Trek Fans demanding that everyone else in Society must now speak in Klingon, simply because that is the way they want to communicate. And as big of a Star Trek fan as I am, I would be opposed to this as well.
No. I see this as an understandably selfish act from a group of people, that have been oppressed for so long regarding everything about their lifestyle, that when things finally start to improve, and they see light at the end of the tunnel, they try to grab any and everything they can without thought, or regard of if one of the things they are grabbing for is really fair to everyone else. It is a natural reaction. Much like starving people, when finally given food, often eat themselves to death in their first meal.
But just because it is understandable doesn't make it right.
Of that we can agree, but this particular point has not been agreed upon by a majority, not by a long shot. The left, however, tries to make it appear that way by shutting down any discourse, and attempting to coerce and bully those who present a differing opinion, into silence.
They do this by labelling people. You attempted to do this with me earlier. Just because I do not agree with this particular issue, you labelled me as someone who supports unfairly firing someone because of their Lifestyle. You basically labelled me a Bigot. The left also does this with labelling people racists for bring up legitimate issues in race relation topics. The left tries to shut down the dissenting viewpoints, to create the illusion that the majority of society feels the way they do.
Last edited:
Cool. You have the philosophical position that all social interaction is Force. Like I said, that's got a long tradition behind it and while I don't particularly find that definition useful, it is clarifying.
They tried to fire him and he had to deflect them with lawyers you say?
There was a lawsuit? The threat of a lawsuit? There was formal action to fire him or begin firing procedures?
I'm sure you can produce all of that. I don't pay that much attention to Peterson's stunts, so it is entirely possible this is real and not him fundraising off of "My enemies are trying to silence me!".
I will see if I can find them, then.
That was a bill about criminal law, it didn't have anything to do with forms of address in the House. Are you thinking of a different law?
So your argument is that a TV show can't fire someone who they think is going to affect the ratings of their show?
Curious.
Well. You never bothered to learn about science, the history of science, STS, or even apparently the basics of Thomas Khun and the concept of the paradigm.
OK. Well. That's a lot to catch up on.
I would suggest reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It isn't too difficult a read and will give you at least the basics (although, obviously, there is a lot that's gone on since then).
So what are your limits on that? Given language is plastic and ever evolving, how far are you willing to go for this?
That you think this is a relevant example really shows how completely you fail to grasp what is being discussed.
I presume you feel that French Canadians being asked to have access to services in French is also something ridiculous? If you don't, do you understand the difference?
Interesting.
Ah! So if society agrees this is better, you will do it? You are just fighting because you think you still might win?
You fundamentally accept the premise!
I asked. You interpreted it as an attack.
But your entire argument appears to be "they are wrong and they aren't allowed to talk about it".
I don't see where I made that statement. I have the position that any forms of social interaction that involves Coercion or Compulsion under threat of retaliation is force.
You are the one that took the definition of force and applied such to "all social interaction". Do you truly have such a negative view of society and how they interact, or are you trying to put words in my mouth to win a discussion?
Jordan Peterson's experience with U of T over his criticism of gender pronouns is well documented. I'm sure you can find everything about U of T's actions towards him with a simple search. Your ignorance of the example does not invalidate the example.
Nope, my mistake was forgetting how broad the law actually was. As it was changes to the Human rights Code, it also encompasses legislating language used in the House.
Would you still define the situation that way if the TV shows criteria for estimating a ratings decline was the person making Social media comments in support of Gay Marriage?
I have. And if my memory serves, Khun was primarily focused on Scientific consensus, which is different from Social consensus. I know he did theorize about Social consensus having been used, and leaking into Scientific Consensus in the past. However, I think it is important to point out that most opinion of Social Consensus in Science is that it is undesirable. As it taints the scientific process.
Social Consensus in science is theorized to primarily be concerned with the rather subjective judgment of values, instead of the judgment of facts. The pure process of scientific consensus consisting of Scholarly communication, replication of reproducible results by others, Scholarly debate, and Peer Review, is desirable.
Exactly. Language evolves. And just like evolution it is a random occurrence. It is not engineered, and it is not forced.
A mutation in a language presents itself to the environment of society. People will either choose to acknowledge, accept and begin to use that mutation or they won't, and it dies. If they do, and it eventually becomes part of the lexicon of society, it is no longer a mutation, it becomes the standard. But the environment of society should not be Coerced, Compelled, and legislated to acknowledge, accept and use that mutation. That is no longer evolution, that is no longer natural selection. Indeed if force must be used it is because that particular Language mutation is not naturally becoming the standard in Society.
And if that is the case, this is no longer the evolution of language. This is imposing a language.
The same could be said about you for not seeing how it is a relevant example.
I don't recall French Canadians demanding that all Canadians replace English with French.
It is being demanded of me from a small group, that I replace all previous English Pronoun meanings that I use, and have existed for Centuries, with new pronoun meanings, simply because that is the way they want to communicate. Sounds very much like my example.
I accepted the premise of your first Sentence of negotiating conflict without it turning violent.
The rest of your statement seems to progress from the standpoint that the pronoun issue being accepted by the majority is already a fait accompli. I simply pointed out it is not. If it were, it would be naturally regarded by Society as the standard. It would not have needed to be legislated. It would not be continuously sparking such debate among University Scholars, politicians, and society. You may yet have to find a way to accept your place in Society regarding this issue.
You asked?
The part underlined in bold sounds less like a question, and more like an accusation.
But you keep right on pretending you took the high ground.
Not even sure what this last statement even applies to. Which argument? The point you just quoted before this statement?
The fact that the Left uses Labelling tactics to shut down debate?
This is rapidly getting to the point where this discussion has exhausted being a cogent debate, and is devolving into standard obfuscation tactics. Requesting further examples to validate previous examples that are easily found and don't change the relevance. Attempts to put words in someone's mouth that clearly wasn't said. Attempting to twist meanings that clearly were not indicated.
Thank you for the discussion, but I no longer wish to participate in the games that have, and are to come.
It's true. You're far too lost in the fog about the basics of science and society and don't seem to even be clear about what you're saying you believe.
We can pick it up again if something concrete happens - that might keep things focused on the reality and might help.
I never heard of Demi Lovato until a year or so ago. I saw her perform on TV. To me she looked distinctly feminine. AFAIK, she still looks feminine. To me, one big storm in a tea cup. Perhaps publicity for publicity's sake? I have way more on my mind than to be concerned about this. It's like the Lady Gaga fiasco a year or so back!
She is not non-binary because no one is non-binary. There are 2 sexes: male and female. That's it.
If she got pregnant, a doctor would (hopefully) never say, "by every available metric, you are pregnant, but
since you perceive yourself to be non-binary I guess you've just gained some weight." That would be insane.
I'll assume she truly thinks she's non-binary. Fine. Lots of people have distorted perceptions of themselves.
People think they're better looking than what they are. They think they're wealthy when their savings account
proves otherwise. All that matters is the actual truth.
If by 'non-binary', she means she doesn't feel feminine all the time then, sure, I'll buy that. No one feels 100 percent
masculine or feminine all the time, and we all have interests that go against the grain of what is typical of our sex.
But that doesn't mean you aren't that sex, it just means you are a nuanced person within that sex.
Anyway, all this non-binary shit needs to stop it's fucking ridiculous.
If she got pregnant, a doctor would (hopefully) never say, "by every available metric, you are pregnant, but
since you perceive yourself to be non-binary I guess you've just gained some weight." That would be insane.
I'll assume she truly thinks she's non-binary. Fine. Lots of people have distorted perceptions of themselves.
People think they're better looking than what they are. They think they're wealthy when their savings account
proves otherwise. All that matters is the actual truth.
If by 'non-binary', she means she doesn't feel feminine all the time then, sure, I'll buy that. No one feels 100 percent
masculine or feminine all the time, and we all have interests that go against the grain of what is typical of our sex.
But that doesn't mean you aren't that sex, it just means you are a nuanced person within that sex.
Anyway, all this non-binary shit needs to stop it's fucking ridiculous.
And it'll always be this way, thus "they" will always be fighting a losing battle.
Offended? Too bad.
So many questions, so few answers.
This "non-binary" pronoun charade is in vogue in the West. It's what happens when a civilization has run out of legit battles to fight. It's a battle that gives stupid people validation. It won't last.
Must be tough living with all that trans fragility
Also having to go back to May to find a post to reply to is rather sad and pathetic.
Last edited:
