So who is Pop?
Today I learned there’s a thing called Pop ‘n’ Olly, which bills itself as “LGBT+ and Equality ‘Edutainment’ for children and young people”…without of course saying anything about what qualifies it to educate children and young people (or for that matter to edutain them).
It showed us…this.
It is – surprise surprise – absolutely dire. It starts by “explaining” how infants are “assigned” a sex and then says gender is different…without bothering to say what “gender” is. “A person’s gender is who they feel that they are,” it says in a smarmy voice, but of course that’s not what they mean at all, they just mean the usual gender bullshit. Here’s an interesting thing: there’s more to “who people are” than their sex or gender. Little children aren’t going to hear “who they feel that they are” and think girl or boy and nothing else.
Smarmy voice continues with “examples,” such as female, male, both, or neither, and then immediately proceeds to “Gender is usually something a person just knows about themselves.” The whole world of “who people are” is boiled down to female or male in an instant. It’s about as educational as a bowl of sick.
Also, by the way, what sex children are is not something they “just know” about themselves; they get told it. They get told it as they get told everything, as part of their development. Adults don’t remember being told it, so the gender fanatics among them jump to the conclusion that we “just know” it, which is a measure of how deeply stupid the whole ideology is.
I can’t watch past the first minute right now because it’s too nauseating.
Not gonna watch, but I wonder: do they explain to kids on what basis the “assignment” is made? Random? Alternate boy/girl? Throw darts? Use a sorting hat?
I’ll let you know, if I can manage to watch any more of it.
“It is likely a doctor looked at your body and assigned you a sex” (or similar, I’m not re-watching that drivel to verify the quote)
The upshot seems to be that gender is whatever an individual says it is – as in, the definition of gender itself is variable, not only how a person defines/thinks of their own gender specifically.
And that’s my mind-melting drivel quota filled for the day.
I just wonder how parents are supposed to look at sonograms when the fetus is gestating and know what the gender will be. I mean, is it all contingent on confirmation when the child turns 2 and is able to confirm their gender was assigned correctly?
Why the hell are we burning down forests with blue gender bombs if that all can change?
This use of “assign” has always bugged me, but it’s even more insidious when used with kids. If they even know what “assign” means, it’s probably in the context of being assigned schoolwork–something that the teacher does, based not on any inherent characteristics but just on the fact of being in that teacher’s class. The Authority said it, so you do it, but if you had your druthers you’d be running around the playground, or playing on your PS5. Adults are always “assigning” things to you, and you’re just supposed to shut up and accept it.
Any kid with a rebellious streak (and let’s face it, to a certain extent that’s every kid) is going to start thinking, well, what if I don’t accept the assignment? Who’s the doctor to tell me who I am?
And it wouldn’t be possible without the appropriation of the experiences of people with DSDs. So called “intersex” people are also instrumentalized in the trans activist attempt to blur or erase the concept of sex itself, of turning it into a “spectrum.” It’s all bullshit and handwaving. If they had actual arguments and legitimate goals, they wouldn’t have to hide behind slogans, appropriate the experiences of others, or hijack the struggle for LGB rights.
Gosh, that makes sex sound binary. Somebody call the Scottish Police!
“The doctor looked at your genitals, but [handwave at DSDs]”
Yes, the doctor goes by the baby’s genitals, which is a heuristic with a better margin of error than many well-thought-of scientific surveys.
“bowl of sick” – thanks a lot for that image as I may need some “brain bleach” to erase it.
Though I can sympathize – it is simply monstrous the crimes that gender ideology and its proponents are guilty of. Turning defenceless and autistic children into sexless eunuchs probably leads the hit parade, but conflating sex and gender by using the same terms – male and female – for both can’t be far behind. The late Justice Scalia had an illuminating analogy that made a useful distinction:
“The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics … distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
However, while there’s a great deal of justification for your charge of “gender bullshit”, there seems to be some justification, as Scalia suggests and as many feminists will argue, for using it to refer to various personality traits and stereotypes. Unfortunately though, transgenderism has transmogrified that – no pun intended but rather to the point – into something profoundly odious and almost totally incoherent.
Medical anthropologist, physician, and professor at McGill University, Sahar Sadjadi, writing in the Journal of Cultural Anthropology, spoke of the “magico-spiritual undertone” and of the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition” that is far too common in that field. Though I’m not sure to what extent she might subscribe to the dichotomy that Scalia drew attention to.