How would you respond to this question if you were put on the spot? Here's one approach . . .
If I were asked today, I would say something like this: "Unlike sex, "gender identity" is an incoherent and thus meaningless term."
Why do I think "gender identity" is an incoherent term? Here is one reason:
In other words, gender ideologists claim that one's genitals are both A) completely irrelevant to one's gender and B) highly relevant to one's gender. To make both of these claims is incoherent. Here's another thing I might add:
Another idea . . .
Perhaps you could point out that "gender ideology" embraces the regressive sex stereotypes most of us (not only feminists) have been trying to downplay for decades:
It really sucks to know that we worked so hard to erase gender stereotypes. Let girls and boys dress how they want, play with whatever toys they wanted, play whatever sports, have whatever interests...boys can dance, girls can be mechanics. We fought so hard. Then this crap.
Or you could invite them to listen to this podcast where Bari Weiss interviews Andrew Sullivan, a pioneer in gay rights. Sullivan doesn't support gender ideology because it is functionally homophobic. Most children claiming to be confused about their sex will, if left alone (not surgically butchered and rendered sterile by cross-sex hormones) grow up to accept their bodies, the great majority of them growing up to be gay (and see here). For this reason, Sullivan characterizes gender ideology to be homophobic.
If things heat up too much, you might want to inject some humor:
One can make an extremely strong argument that American's didn't have informed consent when they were coerced to line up for the COVID vaccination. How important is informed consent? Here's what the Nuremberg Code specifies about informed consent in medical settings:
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The narrative is crumbling. We can now see who has been pulling the levers behind the curtain, and why. From The Free Press.
Fauci, who was the face of the public health community during the crisis, pushed the idea that the evidence strongly indicated that the virus was just a tragic, natural occurrence. He insisted, repeatedly, that an epidemic that started in Wuhan was unlikely to have been the result of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
But Fauci had an incentive to arrive at his conclusion about the deadly pandemic that started in Wuhan. The WIV was known for doing high-risk virology research studying and manipulating coronaviruses. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for almost 40 years, had funded such research at the WIV.
Fauci’s posture—dismissive toward the theory of the lab leak, and later, condescending toward those who entertained it—set what became the accepted narrative about the origins of the pandemic. It was a narrative that was parroted by the government, public health officials, and the media, and even enforced by social media platforms at the request of the Biden White House.
But last month, a trove of explosive emails and other documents were released by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. These revealed evidence of Fauci’s and other officials’ behind-the-scenes involvement with scientists and journalists, demonstrating their efforts to quash the lab leak theory.
You would think that these new revelations would lead our leading "news" organizations to scream for Fauci's head. You would think they would engage in concerted intense efforts to substantiate these red-hot leads. Predictably, if you search the archives for NYT, WaPo, CNN, NPR and MSNBC, you will see that all five of these "journalism" organizations have completely ignored these revelations that Anthony Fauci A) repeatedly lied to the American public by funding dangerous gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, B) lied about this after the pandemic resulted from his reckless research, and C) lied to the public by coordinating the writing & publication of the intentional false "Proximal Origin" paper to cover his tracks. Need I add that I have no respect for any of these "news" organizations, not only for their extremely-partisan lack of interest in this story, but also their non-curious angles on dozens of other stories over the past few years.
I was vaccinated twice and boosted once. I now regret receiving all of those shots, and it goes well beyond and rampant scientific and public health fraud being revealed, including the outrageous paper orchestrated by Anthony Fauci, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” And see here and here. I'm not a scientist or a doctor, but I can see and hear and follow these discussions. We were told none of these things prior to being compelled to take these shots (except by Brett Weinstein, on a video that was pulled down by Youtube).
So here we now are. I am among a growing number of people concerned about the long-term hazards of these treatments, which were touted as "safe." Here are the most recent revelations. First, this discussion involving biologists Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying. The podcast focuses on commentary by Dr. John Campbell, an admission by Dr. Paul Offit and a new Swiss active-surveillance study: "Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination."
What do the Pfizer spokesmen not how ro say about the causal pathway from the "safe" vaccination it produced for COVID? They have no public answer. Rather than provide an answer, they purposefully and shamelessly obstruct and deflect:
Back to the issue of myocarditis and pericarditis. First, some definitions.
Myocarditis: "Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). The inflammation can reduce the heart's ability to pump blood. Myocarditis can cause chest pain, shortness of breath, and rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias)."
Pericarditis: "Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding the heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other."
Commentary by Dr. John Campbell on the new study: Based on this brand new high-quality active surveillance study one person out of 35 who received the Moderna booster incurred vaccine-related heart injuries:
If Regulators around the world don't take notice of the information I'm about to give via this paper, then they are at best in my view negligent at worst they don't even want to think about it. After receiving Moderna booster vaccines in a trial done in Switzerland--there were 777 working people followed up with 777 controls--5.1 percent of those who had the booster vaccine had increased troponins, indicating cardiomyocyte damage. So 5.1% increased cardiac marker damage, chemicals in the blood. 2.8 percent of the 777--that is one in 35--one in 35--had vaccine-associated myocardial injury. Quite astounding and incredible.
This is the result of receiving the Moderna booster. Many of us received two shots prior to receiving the booster. Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying suggest that one who receives all three shots have even higher risk of sustaining heart damage--greater than 1 out of 35 and just because you don't experience short term damage does not mean that you are out of the woods. I was horrified to hear the entire podcast of Weinstein and Heying. If I know there was even a 1 out of 1,000 risk of sustaining heart damage by receiving one shot, I would have refused any of this "treatment." None of us were warned, however. This is the opposite of informed consent.
How many of the elite athletes collapsing (some of them severely injured or dead) were caused by the vaccines? Many people actively do not want to know and do not want to report any of this. What concerns me is that there seems to be a coordinated nonchalance about whether the COVID vaccines are causing the increase in cardiac arrests.
Here is the entire podcast featuring the discussion of Weinstein & Heying:
I posted the John Campbell video on FB with a quote by Campbell. Instead of allowing me to post it, here's what happened:
When you click the "See Why" button:
Who are these "Independent fact-checkers" who know so much more than Dr. John Campbell? Facebook does not disclose this. Are they former employees of the FBI or CIA or DHS? If so, are they consciously adhering to a narrative dictated by the U.S. Government? I'd like to know.
Nurse currently working in A and E with a demonstrated history in Nurse Education. Skilled in pratical Nursing, Healthcare, Nursing Research, and Health and Educational research. Strong healthcare services professional with two higher degrees and several teaching qualifications. Research record focused in teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education.
Wikipedia as a source of propaganda? Just read the Wikipedia article titled "COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory." From the Wikipedia article, would think that there is no legitimate clashing version of this story.
Larry Sangar, co-founder of Wikipedia, appeared on System Update to discuss his own concerns. According to Sangar, during the period of 2006-2012, Wikipedia became a biased pro-establishment website. He gave examples that he noticed from 2010-2015. Wikipedia became severely biased against Eastern/holoistic medical traditions. He sensed that it "got over the top" around 2013-2018, when Wikipedia increasingly moved onto the radar of the political establishment. Google began investing many millions of dollars in to Wikipedia. According to Sanger, "No encyclopedia has ever been as biased as Wikipedia is now."
Sanger mentioned that there are alternative encyclopedias, such as Ballotpedia, which he describes as "fairly neutral" and Conservapedia (on the conservative side). To read 35 encyclopedias at once, Sanger recommended using encyclosearch.org or encycloreader.org These sites us open source software, with digitally signed results. These are two attempts to try to strike a blow against censorship and control. Sanger also mentioned that there will soon be a Wordpress plugin that will allow people to aggregate their own website articles in a mega collection.
