EBB Language Project claims to be "Bringing together scientists to understand the impact of language on ecology and evolutionary biology." They are warning scientists about words like "man," "woman," "male" and "female."
During this conversation with Helen Joyce, Jordan Peterson explained by girls as so much more at risk of harm at the hands of those who peddle transgender ideology. I transcribed the following excerpt:
There's no difference between being self-conscious and being miserable, technically, but here's something else. Self-consciousness among females is much more associated with body dysmorphia. Now there's a bunch of reasons for that. We don't know all of them. But here's a couple. First of all, at puberty, women start to experience more negative emotion on average than men. And that is not true of boys and girls, but it does seem to kick in at puberty. And that's likely because you get size dimorphism developing. And so it's reasonable for women to be a little bit more timid about the physical environment than men. But also women are sexually vulnerable. And also, they have to care for infants. So being threat-sensitive, makes sense, okay? And in any case, those are three possible reasons, but it definitely kicks in at puberty.
Now, it also is the case that anxiety among women tends to take the form of bodily self-consciousness. And I think the reason for that is likely--this is a speculation, although the others are merely observable facts--it's likely because girls and women are judged more comprehensively on their physical appearance than men. So it makes sense that if they're going to be self-conscious, it's going to be more broadly focused. And that's particularly rough. Then the third contributing factor is girls hit puberty earlier than boys. So now what you have is a perfect storm there.
So now you have a girl. And she's feeling a lot more anxious and confused than she did before, because she hit puberty. Plus, her body is doing 50 weird things. Plus, she's getting all sorts of strange attention from adults that she never got before. Plus, she doesn't know how to fit in on the social front. And she's trying to make that transition from childhood to adulthood. And then you have people additionally torturing them about the fact that any deviation from the norm on the stereotypical front is actually an indication that she doesn't exist in the correct body while she doesn't really feel like she's in the correct body to begin with. So it's a perfect storm for young girls.
When Canada came out with its compelled pronoun law 2016, I talked to the Canadian Senate, I said, you idiots, in your legislation, you think you're going to free up kids? You're going to produce a psychogenic epidemic among young women, because they're preferentially susceptible to psychogenic epidemics, which is why we had a bulimia epidemic and an anorexia epidemic, all of which were spread by social media--and a cutting epidemic. And then there's a history of such epidemics going back 300 years: Freudian hysteria, which was very widespread in the Victorian times, although disappeared afterwards, or mutated, was also a psychogenic epidemic that preferentially affected young women.
So I just wanted to lay out some of the reasons why that's the case, higher levels of negative emotion, and more broadly focused self-consciousness. And so then you add to that a kind of unpopularity, because maybe a given girl isn't that sophisticated at manifesting--what would you call it? Socially acceptable feminine traits. It takes a fair bit of sophistication to be a well put-together woman and you're going to be pretty damned awkward at that if you're kind of a clunky tomboy when you're 12.
So now you're providing them with, first of all, a uni-dimensional reason why they're miserable. It's pretty damned convenient. And no wonder an adolescent wants that. It's like, do I have 50 problems? Or do I have one? And then you also entice them with the additional social status that they're going to receive by announcing that they're special, and having every bloody teacher in the entire world--plus the world at large--focus on that narcissistic grandiosity that goes along with the insistence of a special identity. And the only price you have to pay is enforced sterilization and surgical mutilation. Fine deal for our teenagers!
I think there are another couple of things about teenage girls that we don't pay as much attention to but the very fact of physical development in teenage girls means your body is sort of ballooning. You know, breasts here, hips here, bottom there. And you lose that sort of gender-neutral body that gives you so much freedom in childhood. And so what girls experience in puberty is moving from being a free kind of person into being an object because to some, her body is public property. And as you say, it's commented on. Everyone has a right to comment on it. She may, you know, she'll get comments in the street. She'll look all around her and become aware of the objectification of women throughout society.
Now, I think this is happening to boys much more that over the past decade in kind of, certainly objectification of the male body, and in some cases, kind of sexual objectification of men. And this generation are used to seeing those really exaggerated images of femininity so the feminine female heroes have huge breasts and tiny waist and-Kim Kardashian. And the male heroes have a ripped six pack . . . it's all about how you look. So it's happening more for men, and interestingly, boys experiences of things like anorexia have increased, but not as much as girls….
Fascinating in-depth conversation between psychologist Jordan Peterson and Chloe Cole. Chloe got caught up in transgender ideology as a teenager. After becoming convinced that she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, received a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16, and detransitioned at 17.
I saw this conversation last month, but was reminded of it when I read an article by Dr. Peter McCullough, who also watched this video and had this reaction:
I will limit my commentary to a fundamental question:
Why would ANY reasonable and responsible adult believe that an unhappy and confused 13-year-old child has a clear understanding of her “true” gender and sexual identity?
Adolescence (from Latin: adolescere “grow to maturity”) is, by definition, and unstable time of transition. The word shares a common root with dolor—the Latin word for pain. As everyone with a shred a common sense knows, growing up is an awkward and painful experience, fundamentally characterized by instability.
In recent years we’ve witnessed a steady train of mind-bogglingly stupid ideas and beliefs presented on a mass scale, but the mere thought—never mind the execution—of “transitioning” a 13-year-old child to the opposite sex may be the most criminally insane notion that ever sprang from the disordered mind of man.
When, in the entire history of civilization, have adults allowed 13-15-year-olds to make irrevocable, fundamentally life-changing decisions about ANYTHING, much less the decision to undergo a double mastectomy surgery?
At the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy urges that "adolescent" girls "have the capacity to make a reasoned and logical decision" to cut off their breasts. No problem if they later have regrets: "“Here’s the other thing about chest surgery. If you want breasts at a later point in your life, you can go and get them!” In the meantime, 45,000 young women and girls are currently attempting to raise money to cut off their breasts on GoFundMe.
Billboard Chris has worked tirelessly for several years to get the word out about Transgender Ideology, suffering at least two hospitalizations for being attacked while doing so.
Andrew Sullivan celebrates that the NYT has declared that will insist on doing real journalism on transgender issues, even though loud activists, many of them posing as journalists, demand otherwise:
[T]his week, we saw another campus maneuver: an open letter from a thousand or so New York Times contributors, accusing the NYT of “follow[ing] the lead of far-right hate groups” in its coverage of transgender issues. Other campus tactics: a loud demo outside; alliance between insiders and outsider activists; public shaming of named journalists; accusations that the NYT is a “workplace made hostile by bias” (the now-familiar HR gambit); and non-negotiable demands for even more hiring solely on the basis of identity and ideology.
It’s an echo of Evergreen and Yale and Middlebury and Reed. The ploys are repeated because they work and there’s no downside. And almost all the university presidents caved. They held meetings and meetings; they apologized; they appeased; they conceded core liberal principles of free speech and dissent; they terminated dissident faculty; they equivocated and collaborated in the pursuit of “diversity” and then “equity.” In a word, they were pathetic.
And in the summer of 2020, when campus tactics invaded newsrooms, and writers and editors were purged for committing journalism that violated the orthodoxies of social justice, we saw a similar collapse of nerve.
But this time was different. Check this out, from the executive editor of the NYT. It’s the response we always needed from the leadership of besieged liberal institutions before and never got:
It is not unusual for outside groups to critique our coverage or to rally supporters to seek to influence our journalism. In this case, however, members of our staff and contributors to The Times joined the effort. Their protest letter included direct attacks on several of our colleagues, singling them out by name. Participation in such a campaign is against the letter and spirit of our ethics policy … We have a clear policy prohibiting Times journalists from attacking one another's journalism publicly or signaling their support for such attacks …
We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.
Readers know I’m often merciless about the NYT, but Joseph Kahn is a hero for the clarity of this."