Teachers are indoctrinating our children in radical trans ideology
For trans ideology to truly spread, it needs to become an inherent part of our core belief system. As natural as the sky being blue, and the earth being round, we must all have the truth of trans as a foundational element of our understanding about the world for it to thrive. Convincing adults is one thing, but to really make this wash, it’s children that need to taught the dogma of multiple gender identities and the ability of humans to swap their sex for its opposite. The purported goal behind teaching children that male and female are nothing more than feelings is compassion, empathy, and anti-bias.
The work to bring children into the trans fold is pervasive and growing, and we’ve seen it in the US and Canada. In Sweden, the government is pouring money into an educational program for drag queens to read to children with disabilities. Meanwhile, in the UK, where trans advocates have a major head start, the BBC is airing educational programming to teach children that there are as many genders as stars in the sky. Both of these programs bring new dictates on gender to young kids. And kids, malleable as they are, typically believe what adults tell them.
“A major publication is happy to publish any old nonsense so long as it’s sufficiently woke. Social justice ideology has infected our mainstream media,” Andrew Doyle explains in a new video lecture recorded at the National Liberal Club in London on 13th October 2019.
The 25-minute video is a brilliant explainer on how satire and hoaxing work in 2019. With major platforms and publications getting woker by the minute, it’s imperative that people who haven’t succumbed to the woke moral panic to call out the many hypocrisies and incoherencies of social justice. For the few who don’t know, Andrew Doyle is the genius behind the internet’s greatest troll, Titania McGrath.
In 2019, feelings outweigh facts at every turn. And when op-eds read like fabricated drivel, it’s no wonder that the public has a hard time discerning truth from fiction. It takes comedians and satirists to point out just how insane this whole thing is. Doyle points out that “the woke are the establishment” and he couldn’t be more right. Those who are in the powerful cultural positions, in academia, media, arts, entertainment, and most importantly, advertising, are the ones with the batons and horses to push these ideas onto the public.
This is the kind of influence that matters, not politicians and legislators, but those who control the media. And they are being fooled by their own unwillingness to address their woke bias. It is this bias that veers us into the realm of complete absurdity, where people hate themselves for their skin colour, language is colonialism, words are violence, and disagreement is fascism.
“The mainstreaming of social justice is also evident in the fact that even respected, national newspapers don’t seem to understand the basic definitions of phrases like fascist, alt-right, and even far-right,” Doyle remarks. “They no longer know what these words mean, and they are just bandying them about promiscuously, which is really damaging. Now if you claim the right to define the word Nazi as just anyone who disagrees with you politically, then, of course, you can also claim that there is an epidemic of Nazism. But in doing so you are also inadvertently, acting in the interests of the worst kinds of people.”
Doyle notes that the reframing of the conversation to mark those who disagree with the mainstream social justice movement as alt-right Nazi fascists, cedes the argument in favour of free speech to those very people you are trying to silence.
The last five minutes of the speech is where Doyle truly shines. He points to three specific pieces published by major platforms. “In August of last year, The New York Times ran an anonymous letter. It was called ‘How Can I Cure My White Guilt?’ It was just signed ‘Whitey,’ and it was a person who described themselves as being riddled with shame for being white. Now the whole thing was obviously ridiculous, and obviously a hoax. So, Titania claimed that she had written it. And she provided screenshots, of the letter, on her hard drive, with the date, just to prove that she was the author.”
Doyle claims that the authorship doesn’t really matter. Maybe he wrote it, invoking the spirit of Titania, maybe he didn’t. The point is that “a major publication is happy to publish any old nonsense so long as it is sufficiently woke. The social justice ideology has infected our mainstream media. And irreparably degraded its standards.”
Finally, Doyle mentions the crown jewel of hoax columns—a breathless op-ed published by The Independent. “In February of this year, Liam Evans wrote a piece for The Independent, and he cited a number of extremely talented comedians, people like Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, Finn Taylor, and he said that their jokes about sensitive topics amounted to hate speech. He said that these kind of jokes ‘should be subject to investigation. It simply isn’t good enough for comedians to cry free speech after every hateful joke, as if the laws that govern the rest of us don’t apply to them.’”
Who is Liam Evans? Well, he’s clearly an authoritarian, censorious monster. But he’s also clearly not real. Doyle asks why The Independent would run such clearly fabricated nonsense and points to the fact that a number of prominent comedians complained to the publication. Doyle asks, “What is happening to our media? Why is a respected national newspaper publishing drivel by a writer that no one has ever heard of just because it’s pushing a woke agenda? What does that tell us? And the other question they should have been asking is why is the left publishing these kinds of censorial articles that used to grace the pages of the right-wing tabloids? And if it takes a hoaxer to provoke a little self-reflection, then surely that’s a good thing.”
“Again, I do not want to speculate as to the authorship of that article,” Doyle says. “But I will point out one thing which I do find just a little bit curious… You might be interested to note that if you take every fourth letter of every sentence, it actually spells out the phrase, ‘Titania McGrath wrote this, you gullible hacks.’”
When asked if he was indeed behind the hoax article, Andrew Doyle remained playfully cagey, telling The Post Millennial: “So many of the opinion columns in the woke press read like satire already, so in a sense I shouldn’t be surprised that such an obvious hoax would be published.”
The truth is if it weren’t for geniuses like Doyle, Gervais, Chappelle, CK, and the handful of other comedians brave enough to stand up to the woke mob, the culture wars might be a lost cause. As Doyle has pointed out numerous times, hoaxing and satirizing the woke establishment is actually punching up. Every major platform and publication is woke in 2019. Those who issue social justice diktats have all of the power and influence. Doyle’s work is vital.
News hoaxes are as old as news itself, but what news outlets can get pranked about is very revealing. In this case, media wanted to believe that a young woman hated her whiteness, that Sam Harris is a gateway drug to the alt-right, free speech doesn’t matter, and off-colour jokes must be investigated by the authorities. The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Independent wanted to believe these things. In fact, they were desperate to believe these things. That’s why they published these hoax stories. And that’s why we need to keep making fun of them.
There appears to be some turbulence ahead for the LGBT community. According to a national survey by GLAAD, LGBT acceptance appears to be declining in America. Interestingly, it’s declining among a group that is often touted as the most accepting and socially “woke”—millennials.
The survey reports that the percentage of young people who reported being “somewhat” or “very” comfortable with LGBT people dropped from 53% to 45%. This is the second year in a row that the number has fallen. While many gay publications have shared this survey and rang the alarm, I’ve yet to see anyone online offer a measured opinion of why this is occurring beyond “ORANGE MAN BAD.”
I am a transgender woman and YouTuber who has witnessed LGBT discourse become more extreme and intense year after year. What used to simply be a conversation about marriage equality and treating those who are different than us as equals has become a cultural hailstorm. Our community’s most popular and decorated activists often preach the most extreme of our ideas rather our most practical. Buzzwords and genders are added into the community’s vernacular at such a rate that even I can’t keep up with them. What does that say about someone who is not within the community and their ability to keep pace with the dialogue?
I believe it is the T in LGBT (or whatever the current acronym is) that has contributed the most to the erosion of society’s understanding and acceptance of the community at large. When I transitioned 6 years ago, I remember being fearful of receiving rejection because of who I was. Now, I find myself fearful of rejection because of who trans activists have led the general public to believe I am. The push for 5-year-olds to transition, mandatory dating of trans people (unless you want to be called a bigot), and forced acceptance of biological males destroying female athletes in sports are among the most toxic ideas pushed by trans activists in 2019. As a trans woman myself, I believe none of them but often find myself anxious when meeting new people that they may think I do as a default.
To be clear, these are also all ideas that are incompatible with the general public. It is society’s natural inclination to protect children and women. So why is it that the trans community has made it their mission to brand themselves as something that at best disregards the harm to both children and women and at worst willingly inflicts it? If this is the route the community insists on going down, I don’t see much hope at all. I expect the decline of acceptance to continue.
There is an LGBT fatigue that has fallen on many in society that is a direct result of the constant bullying, shaming, and virtue signalling that comes out of the community—or at least, the activists that are placed on a pedestal to speak on our behalf. As the GLAAD survey reveals, it is particularly millennials who feel this fatigue the strongest. Millennials tend to be the most plugged into the culture war, so it only makes sense that many are beginning to question—what if this LGBT thing is derailing a bit? Why must I be forced to accept drag queens teaching sex ed to my children, and why am I feeling my heart race at the mere thought of questioning or challenging it publicly?
At some point, the community is going to have to address the overreach and bad ideas we are currently spouting. I am personally exhausted with all of it, but hey—all I can do is continue to try to sound the alarm myself.
Six months ago I reported a story about an Ontario couple, Pamela and Jason Buffone, whose daughter, “N,” suffered so much distress in her Grade One classes on gender fluidity that her parents eventually enrolled her in another school. A bright and impressionable child, N informed her parents that her teacher had told the class that “Girls are not real and boys are not real.” The teacher meant, of course, that biology is not an indicator of a child’s gender identity, a concept N was too cognitively immature to grasp at age six, and so found very frightening.
The Buffones were perturbed by the uniform commitment to the teaching of controversial gender theories to young children that they found when they took their objections, first to the school principal and then up the chain to the Superintendent of schools for their district. While sympathy was expressed for N’s confusion and anxiety, which persisted until her parents removed her from the school, approval for the program of instruction in gender fluidity remained firm in every rank.
Most parents would have let the matter drop once their own child’s troubles were over. But the Buffones looked at their daughter’s experiences through the larger lens of a changing culture and took their concern to the next level. Following Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party victory in June 2018, they filed a complaint with the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT). That was dismissed, although an OCT representative conceded that the curriculum is based on ideology.
Then they filed an application before the Human rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) against the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board on behalf of their daughter, citing “discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity in contravention of the Human Rights Code.”
That complaint is now in progress. From the materials I have seen, the School Board is taking the line that the gender-identity law only offers protection to those who are historically disadvantaged. Basically, they’re saying it’s too bad if N was distressed by the lesson plans, but the school’s greater obligation to ensure that dysphoric kids feel included.
From the Buffones’ point of view, inclusion for gender-dysphoric children seemed to require the deliberate erosion of N’s comfort and security in her normative gender identity as a girl—and nothing but a girl. This complaint will uncover whether the HRTO believes that all children’s gender identity rights are protect under Bill 33 (“Toby’s Act”), as its wording would imply, or whether some identities are to be considered more equal than others.
Sometimes a life experience galvanizes people into unexpected activism. It’s a bonus if that person is intelligent, highly organized and familiar with effective methods of communication. This has been the case for Pamela Buffone. Out of frustration at the stonewalling she and her husband received, she decided to take the only kind of action a concerned citizen with no official power can.
Buffone first educated herself on the subject of gender identity: the theories behind it, the proliferating affirmation movement, and the effects of puberty blockers on children. She reached out to other concerned parents and dissidents in the professions most directly involved in the treatment of gender dysphoria. She started to write blog posts based on her experience. With allies, Buffone founded an excellent site, for which she is the publisher, the Canadian Gender Report (CGR).
In the CGR’s “About Us” section, it says, “We are a group of parents and professionals concerned about the medicalization of identity and the lack of open discussion on issues that are affecting Canadian families and children.”
The CGR takes on some of the more pressing issues surrounding the explosion of gender-identity “contagion” all over the western world. It offers reliable science-based information on sex and gender and asks important questions, such as why gay and autistic kids are so radically over-represented in the rush to transition. It offers news on what is happening in this arena, here and abroad, such as a national inquiry into the safety and ethics of transgender medicine presently under way in Australia, conducted by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. It also provides a window into the under-studied area of detransitioning, a phenomenon that activists work hard to suppress knowledge of (usually successfully).
Just to give you an idea of why the CGR is so valuable: In a Dec 3 post, the Report assesses the recently announced Trans Youth Can! observational study of youth referred for blockers or hormones at ten clinics in Canada, funded with a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health research. It will collect data over a two-year period on about 300 Canadian youth under 16 years of age.
On the surface, it seems very bona fide. But the Report finds issues of concern. You can read their critique here. What leaped out at me was the fact that the research team is closely affiliated with Trans Pulse Canada, an organization that requires its board of directors to be majority trans. The CGR notes that Dr. Greta Bauer “is the research director of both the Trans Pulse survey of the trans community in Canada which has been credited with changing legislation and policy in Canada and this Trans Youth Can! study of youth referred for puberty blockers and hormone treatment.” Knowing this, I am skeptical that the study will produce an objective portrayal of the situation.
Indeed, objectivity on the skyrocketing demand for professional services for presumed gender dysphoria is hard to come by at all. The average parent who wants to serve their child’s gender interests, but also wants the most conservative possible process before arriving at affirmation, find themselves stymied when it seems that at every turn—whether it is teachers, social workers, psychologists or medical practitioners—everyone they consult is encouraging pro-active affirmation as a best practice, and any hesitancy to affirm a potential risk factor for the child’s mental health.
That is precisely why the CGR is so valuable as a resource for them. Readers often tell me they want to push back against the ideological excesses of the trans movement, but feel helpless to make a difference. Educating themselves through CGR posts and links and promoting CGR through their networks is an excellent beginning. For parents of young children being exposed to what parents consider age-inappropriate material, I particularly recommend CGR’s “Resources” section.
Here you will find links to other organizations working to bring responsibility and scientific integrity to the trans discussion; a Youtube channel offering interviews and insights on detransitioning; a support group and blog for parents of children with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD); a U.K. group fighting for the protection of women’s rights in sports; and a link to gender-critical activist Meghan Murphy’s website, Feminist Current.
Also in this section, one finds access to the perspectives of seasoned, non-ideological medical professionals and therapists in this field. Their prudence, rationality and wisdom will act as a welcome balm to the anguished souls of parents caught up in this tangled web, who feel surrounded by trans activist bullies in their search for knowledge and disinterested advice.
I recommend this site to them, and to all Canadians seeking objective information and enlightenment on a culturally transformative, hypothesis-based experiment, in which our children and grandchildren are an unwitting and involuntary test group.
Disclaimer: Buffone has been represented by the JCCF (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms) where the author serves on the Board of Directors.
Lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca).
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared in 1969 that “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,” and that the government should ignore “what’s done in private between adults.” On that basis, his Liberal government proceeded to remove sodomy from the Criminal Code.
Today, 50 years later, some Canadians believe that government should be keenly interested in “what’s done in private between adults”—this time not in bedrooms but in the offices of psychologists, on therapists’ couches, and in private counselling sessions with clergy at mosques, synagogues, churches and temples.
A proposed ban on “conversion therapy” in Edmonton is not limited to discredited practices such as shock therapy attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation. Rather, it is worded so broadly that it invites the government into every psychologist’s office, every therapy session, and every pastoral or spiritual counselling session that a religious leader might have with a member of her or his congregation.
If passed by Edmonton’s City Council, Bylaw 19061 would make it illegal to offer or provide “counselling or behaviour modification techniques, administration or prescription of medication, or any other purported treatment, service, or tactic used for the objective of changing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or gender preference, or eliminating or reducing sexual attraction or sexual behaviour between persons of the same sex.”
Providing and promoting “gender-affirming surgery or any service related to gender-affirming surgery” would be the only legal choice left available under Bylaw 19061.
Bylaw 19061 applies not just to doctors, psychologists, counsellors and psychiatrists, but also to pastors, priests, rabbis, imams and all religious leaders. The “business” prohibited by Bylaw 19061 includes non-profits “however organized or formed” and includes every “profession” or “calling” without an exemption for clergy.
Bylaw 19061 addresses practices that are governed not by politicians, but by the various professional associations that accredit doctors, psychologists, counsellors, pharmacists and other professionals. For example, the “administration or prescription of medication” is governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, not by the 13 politicians who currently run Edmonton.
Based on information posted on the City of Edmonton website, neither Mayor Don Iveson nor any of the 12 Councillors appear to have any formal education, expertise or credentials in psychology, psychiatry, medicine or pastoral care.
Bylaw 19061 targets private conversations between consenting adults about sexual orientation, gender identity, expression and preference: conversations to which no government should have access. This Bylaw shows no respect, or even tolerance, for “what’s done in private between adults” in regard to their personal choices about sexual feelings and sexual behaviour, and their personal choices about what spiritual, psychological and behavioural goals to set for themselves. Bylaw 19061 is another example of a “government knows best” ideology that disrespects the freedom of adults to make their own choices about their own lives.
Bylaw 19061 takes away choice from a person struggling with gender identity confusion (dysphoria), by keeping legal only the option of seeking opposite-sex hormones, and eventually surgery, in an attempt to make the body conform to thoughts and feelings. The Bylaw makes it illegal for any psychologist, clergy, psychiatrist, doctor or counsellor to assist people in overcoming their feelings of confusion, and helping them to accept and embrace their biological reality. People “de-transition” all the time because they are dissatisfied with the transgender narrative and the results of their attempts to transition sexes. Government has no lawful business attempting to prevent them from doing so.
Bylaw 19061 also takes away the individual’s choice to seek and obtain help to practice celibacy. Not every Canadian accepts the motto “If it feels good, do it.” There are religious and non-religious persons in Canada who want to change or curtail their sexual behaviour, including people who are same-sex attracted. But Bylaw 19061 makes it illegal for pastors, rabbis, imams, priests and even leaders of voluntary 12-step programs, to assist same-sex attracted people who choose to practice celibacy.
Ironically, Bylaw 19061 allows these same pastors, rabbis, imams, priests and 12-step leaders to promote celibacy to those who feel attracted to the opposite sex. Under Bylaw 19061, an unmarried Orthodox Jewish man can receive his rabbi’s encouragement not to have sex with women, but it’s illegal for this rabbi to encourage an unmarried man to abstain from having sex with other men.
Those who support Bylaw 19061 are no doubt motivated by the good intentions of helping people and preventing harm, but their arrogance is astounding. Who are they to dictate to people struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions that the only valid choice is to act on those feelings? How is it humane or compassionate to remove support from people who want to practice celibacy? The number of people who want to practice celibacy may be small, but that is irrelevant to the importance of their rights and freedoms respected by a free society. After all, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about protecting minorities, even very small ones, and especially unpopular ones. As the Supreme Court of Canada explains it, the majority’s views have no need for constitutional protection, as they are tolerated in any event.
Bylaw 19061 is pure politics, not medicine or science. It is political grandstanding, designed to impress the LGBTQ lobby, and to promote transgender ideology.
Fifty years after Trudeau proclaimed tolerance for “what’s done in private between adults,” Bylaw 19061 tells us that it’s OK for consenting adults to engage in the sexual practices of their choice, but it’s not OK for consenting adults to discuss those sexual practices freely if their conversation heads in the “wrong” direction. The “wrong” direction, under Bylaw 19061, is that which challenges currently popular beliefs about sexuality. By making certain private conversations between consenting adults illegal, Bylaw 19061 invites the government into private spaces that ought to remain private.