This is why the face-mask mandates for adults hurt children the most: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
Protections for Gender Identity lead to Reverse Discrimination and Contradictions in Law.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then any law compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.
The problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. When a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms there is discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but when females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms there is discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females vis-a-vis the physiological characteristics of males. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.
To clarify, I think it is right to protect transgender people from discrimination in the public domain on the basis of their transgederism. My objection is only to how the problem is currently formulated, due to the logical inconsistency associated with gender-identity being posited as something distinct from the biological norms of sex.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then any law compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.
The problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. When a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms there is discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but when females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms there is discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females vis-a-vis the physiological characteristics of males. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.
To clarify, I think it is right to protect transgender people from discrimination in the public domain on the basis of their transgederism. My objection is only to how the problem is currently formulated, due to the logical inconsistency associated with gender-identity being posited as something distinct from the biological norms of sex.
The first ever autopsy on an mRNA vaccinated person found Covid spike proteins in nearly every organ of the body, despite the manufacturer assuring us that these proteins never leave the injection site. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8051011/
PubMed Central (PMC)
First case of postmortem study in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2
A previously symptomless 86-year-old man received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. He died 4 weeks later from acute renal and respiratory failure. Although he did not present with any COVID-19-specific symptoms, he tested positive ...
Why some people refuse Covid vaccines.
There are about 2000 human proteins in the AZ vaccine. We never had vaccines that dirty in the past, no more than a couple of non-target proteins in a typical vaccine, but now there are 2000 and all of human origin.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-440461/v1/dadfb0d76a7a31650e518d70.pdf
Foreign proteins injected through the skin, even in trace amounts, cause IgE sentisation (allergic priming). This is basic immunology. If these proteins are within 1–2 amino acid difference from your self-proteins, the IgE response will target your own cells, for the rest of your life. ie auto-immunity. In most cases the disease will be subclinical; you wont know it except that you feel less energetic, or perhaps do not notice any difference, but cells in some part of your body will be replicating at an increased rate due to the persistent attack by the immune system. After several years of this increased cell replication, a mutation is likely to appear, which we call cancer.
On the persistence of IgE due to injected proteins: Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein during influenza virus immunization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/
And this paper covers fingerprinting of the specific proteins associated with auto-immune diseases:
https://zenodo.org/record/3603481
There are about 2000 human proteins in the AZ vaccine. We never had vaccines that dirty in the past, no more than a couple of non-target proteins in a typical vaccine, but now there are 2000 and all of human origin.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-440461/v1/dadfb0d76a7a31650e518d70.pdf
Foreign proteins injected through the skin, even in trace amounts, cause IgE sentisation (allergic priming). This is basic immunology. If these proteins are within 1–2 amino acid difference from your self-proteins, the IgE response will target your own cells, for the rest of your life. ie auto-immunity. In most cases the disease will be subclinical; you wont know it except that you feel less energetic, or perhaps do not notice any difference, but cells in some part of your body will be replicating at an increased rate due to the persistent attack by the immune system. After several years of this increased cell replication, a mutation is likely to appear, which we call cancer.
On the persistence of IgE due to injected proteins: Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein during influenza virus immunization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2249232/
And this paper covers fingerprinting of the specific proteins associated with auto-immune diseases:
https://zenodo.org/record/3603481
6.8% of Pfizer vaccine recipients develop subclinical clotting antibodies. Long term impact on mortality is yet unknown.
https://ashpublications.org/blood/article-abstract/138/4/299/475972/Frequency-of-positive-anti-PF4-polyanion-antibody
https://ashpublications.org/blood/article-abstract/138/4/299/475972/Frequency-of-positive-anti-PF4-polyanion-antibody
Vaccinated people more susceptible to sneezing fits when re-infected with SARS-CoV-2
“People who had been vaccinated and then tested positive for COVID-19 were more likely to report sneezing as a symptom compared with those without a jab." The vaccinated are thus more likely to spread the virus by sneezing.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vaccine#part_3
“People who had been vaccinated and then tested positive for COVID-19 were more likely to report sneezing as a symptom compared with those without a jab." The vaccinated are thus more likely to spread the virus by sneezing.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/risk-covid-after-vaccine#part_3
Joinzoe
What’s my risk of COVID-19 after vaccination?
Our latest analysis of data from the ZOE COVID Study app reveals who is most at risk from being reinfected with COVID-19 after vaccination.
Dirty Vaccines:
293 chicken and bovine proteins identified in the influenza vaccine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889159114005194
Bovine proteins contaminate Tdap and DTaP vaccines. Cause milk allergy.
https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
293 chicken and bovine proteins identified in the influenza vaccine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889159114005194
Bovine proteins contaminate Tdap and DTaP vaccines. Cause milk allergy.
https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)00747-0/fulltext
Sciencedirect
Comparison of Pandemrix and Arepanrix, two pH1N1 AS03-adjuvanted vaccines differentially associated with narcolepsy development
Narcolepsy onset in children has been associated with the 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic and vaccination with Pandemrix. However it was not clearly ob…
Astra Zeneca Covid Vaccine causes subclinical auto-immunity in 67% of vaccinated individuals.
“We detected non-platelet activating anti-PF4 antibodies in 67% of the vaccinated individuals... Our results offer an important insight into the ongoing investigations regarding the underlying multifactorial pathophysiology of thrombotic events induced by the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine.”
Subclinical IgE mediated auto-immunity is a life-long consequence. It can lead to negative clinical outcomes later in life, including cancer (due to an increased rate of forced regeneration of cells attacked by the immune system).
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/712/htm
“We detected non-platelet activating anti-PF4 antibodies in 67% of the vaccinated individuals... Our results offer an important insight into the ongoing investigations regarding the underlying multifactorial pathophysiology of thrombotic events induced by the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine.”
Subclinical IgE mediated auto-immunity is a life-long consequence. It can lead to negative clinical outcomes later in life, including cancer (due to an increased rate of forced regeneration of cells attacked by the immune system).
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/712/htm
MDPI
High Prevalence of Anti-PF4 Antibodies Following ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (AZD1222) Vaccination Even in the Absence of Thrombotic Events
It is unclear whether the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine can induce the development of anti-PF4 antibodies in vaccinated individuals who have not developed thrombosis. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the presence of antibodies against heparin/PF4…
Gender Theory as Philosophical Superstition.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00406-7
As I argued before, Gender Theory is false because it gives rise to Contradictions in Law.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then any law compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.
This problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. If a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but if females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females on account of advantageous physiological characteristics of males in relation to certain sports. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00406-7
As I argued before, Gender Theory is false because it gives rise to Contradictions in Law.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then any law compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman only in virtue of having a female body (Cisgender).
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity entails invalidation of Y’s gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of gender identity of one person may thus discriminate against gender identity of another; the exercise of the law violates itself, which is absurd.
This problem can be approached from another angle. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity Or sex; these categories are considered on par, equally protected, but this leads to practical contradictions. If a male who identifies as a woman is refused entry to female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of gender identity (notwistanding the objection raised above, regarding conflicting gender identities), but if females are forced to strip before a male in their female-only changerooms this qualifies as discrimination on the basis of sex. This anomaly is even more apparent in sports, because inclusion of males in female competition categories essentially eliminates the right of females to have their own competition category. This disadvantages females on account of advantageous physiological characteristics of males in relation to certain sports. Most human rights organisations and even legislators seem to arbitrarily and perhaps unwittingly discriminate in favour of gender identity over sex.
Philosophia
Assessment of the Rationality of Gender Studies from the Perspective of Bocheński’s Concept of Philosophical Superstition
Philosophia - In recent years, the issue of the determinants of human gender identity has been lively discussed. In such discussions, there are numerous supporters of the belief that a...
Contemporary political power depends primarily on maintaining Face; the guise of the good. Challenge the Face, allow the opportunity for the Face to be Saved by a pre-determined official re-action, and Power can be (to a degree) mitigated, directed, controlled. Power consists in permanent tension, reciprocity, and collusion between the controllers and the controlled, and this dynamic equation can be augmented by the third pillar of humanity.
Who Owns You?
Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?
This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447
Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?
This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447
Ssrn
A Monetary Case for Value-added Negative Tax
I address the most fundamental yet routinely ignored issue in economics: that of distributive impact of the monetary system on the real economy. By reexamining
Those who agreed to wearing a face mask, despite everyone being able to claim a health-exemption, will now agree to anything. And that was the purpose of the mask mandate, to unmask and quantify the weakness of character in our population. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787