Be sure to catch the individual interviews with Helen, Andy, and Eric: Helen Joyce: ua-cam.com/video/ZG9_lcln7FU/v-deo.html Andy Ngo: ua-cam.com/video/KCXu8ax1QOo/v-deo.html Eric Kaufmann: ua-cam.com/video/TlzLQO6bRdM/v-deo.html
leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively). In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator! This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for God is with you! P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡 N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬 In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
Thank you for your honesty and vulnerability. It spoke very eloquently of the complexity of these issues and was a beautiful, painful corrective to just leaving this in the intellectual sphere. We need to see people as people, and thank you for courageously letting us see you.
Referring to his own inclinations as "degenerate" was in roughly equal measures sad as it was pathetic. I suspect he believes this will further endear him to conservatives whom he perceives to be his allies. This, it should go without saying, is folly.
Oh man, Andy made me cry. Those (about growing old childless, and the ethics of surrogacy etc.) are exactly the things I struggle with a lot, and nobody (at least nobody gay) seems to want to talk about these things. I love him for openly talking about these and other things.
Having children is no guarantee you'll have them by your side when you die. In fact, I can't really think of any old people, apart from my Italian friend's grandmother, who spend their last years in the family home with their children and grandchildren.
@@balalaika852 There are no guarantees, obviously. But you don't need to live in the same house to benefit from the company of children and grandchildren. My mother lives alone, but the kids and grandkids are there all the time, and she visits them. She doesn't feel alone. When my father died in the hospital, everyone was there. I'll be lucky if some nieces and nephews still care about me when I'm old
If you're not somehow able to create relationships, make good friends who accompany you when you're sick, maybe/probably you shouldn't have children either. This goes for gay folks or single women who insist on having children on their own. Children are not born to fulfill needs of adults. Women's bodies are not made to fulfill men's wishes
Surrogacy is human trafficking painted as “progress “ , where children are the product to buy and women the incubators to use . It’s regally incredible that this disgusting and misogynistic human trafficking is still legal in some countries ( in most western countries is actually illegal ) . I am gay Myself and I find the gay men who feel entitled to a woman’s body to create a child that will never have the right to ever pronounce the word mom , selfish monsters . No decent man would ever deprive a child from a mother .
I relate to Andy, I’m straight and married but was never able to have kids, I didn’t think about it too much til I spent a lot of time in palliative care with my mother. Obviously there is no guarantee of kids support but it is quite sobering as you get older without kids. Thanks for being honest Andy.
yes it isn't 100% an issue with gay men, where women are much better at building social and family structures there are many straight men who suddenly find out at 50 that there is a good chance that they will be retiring and growing old entirely alone with no partner, no family, no children and no friends
I have known people who have had children who are ignored by their children. Having children is no guarantee of closeness, care, etc. On the other hand, I have seen loving families make an effort to look after their childless aunts and uncles.
I hate this mentality that “poor me I don’t have kids to care about me when I’m old”. People with that mentality shouldn’t have kids. People who want to be good parents to a new generation with no expectation of return should. And you are right. Having them guarantees nothing re old age care and family visiting. You just have to live what is real and right for you. I am not so selfish as to complain that as I have no kids no one will care about me. I will be setting up my life to be someone so others want to care for or be able to afford to look after myself by paying someone to help. I have chosen a different path and won’t put guilt on others who have kids.
Dear Andy, I thought you were great being so honest with so difficult issues. By some weird coincident, my father came out as gay when he was almost 50. long story, (my mother splitt off before that and after his coming out they kept in touch). So I got to know some of his new friends, other gay guys, probably not his lovers. He always commented how it was very hard within the typical gay crowd to grow old, that a lot of them had issues with their own mortality. He died at 83 (some complication and age) and I met some of his old friend. I know at least two couples who grow old and grey together On the other hand, my older sister broke off all contact with my parents (different issues), what Im sayin is, that even if sou have kids it might be that you are still lonely when growing old. My mom is incredible and having a lot of friends and activities. I wish you all the best and that you manage to view growing old somewhat relaxed and with some inner confidence. And I really like or appreciate that you had taken into account all the problematic social issues around surrogacy All the best, Anna
I've got to send out some love and respect for Andy for putting his true thoughts and feelings on the record here. Very heartfelt moments and wirthwhile human sharing of his experience.
Andy is such a sweetheart. I appreciate his honesty so much, it is something that should be spoken of more openly. Helen is such a legend, and that hug was everything. She exudes a lot of this kind, motherly energy.
Fellow Portlander, here. Thanks for calling out Ted Wheeler, enabler of the woke mob and one of those responsible for the destruction of a once beautiful city. I appreciate all of you for speaking out against this insanity.
I love Andy Ngo. He's such a lovely, honest, and brave person. Love his work too. This was a great SSE (don't mind if I do) with some of my favorite people.
I was curious to see what all these comments meant about Andy really having a moment to open up and wow ♡ really appreciate the honesty and opportunities for difficult conversations
Great, Helen, to see you at Peter again. To quote Mr Menno, I would happyly terf together with you, greetings from a German woman working abroad ( with dh = dear husband ,and two „selfgrown“ kids)
Jennifer Bilek : "If you have the luxury of choosing to use accurate language that reflects the biological reality of sex and you choose not to for your own comfort, the only real choice you’ve made is to align with the system that is commodifying humanity and weakening the resistance against it. People who are at the highest end of the pecking order that is below the ruling class often make this choice to secure some perks (speaking enagemenents, book deals, large philanthropic donations to their NGOs) that keep their own head above water, while they stand on the heads of those below, who have no choice. It’s reprehensible behavior at this stage of the situation to pose as support for the resistance to our ultimate commodification, while indulging one’s own individual feelings about using accurate language. It’s privileged activism and the only ones helped by it are those participating in it. Furthermore, any gain from this pursuit is temporary since it ultimately feeds the system that will come for those who sell out like this, too. It’s class warfare, same as it ever was."
Ha, I got Helen's answer on equality before she revealed it. I'm in agreement with her. She's making the case for consciousness lowering. I also had issue with the word championing.
Same for me, that word 'championing'. I don't "champion" being ragefully anti-paedophile but it's still the worst thing I can possibly think to do to someone else, or to happen to someone else.
I watched so many Helen Joyce’s interviews that I immediately guessed she was on disagree for the first part of the phrase “everyone should champion ..”
I question the premise but I look forward to watching when I'm free. Do women saying online that others shouldn't call men "she", especially men with AGP, have any power to enforce that? Do they have the power to punish ppl by forcing them out of their jobs or positions of prestige? What does totalitarian mean when it's strong opinions with no power that can be ignored?
I agree with those women, to the extent that I will ONLY use sex-based pronouns. And I may try to PERSUADE others to do the same; That sex-independent "gender" is an evidence-free religious fiction, and that PRETENDING to believe in sex-independent "gender" is far more harmful than many people realise... But I would never try to DEMAND that others MUST use sex-based pronouns. Because that would be just as authoritarian (or "totalitarian" I guess. Is there a difference?) as the people who try to force ME to "respect" incorrect, wrong-sex pronouns. And sure, there's a difference between a North Korean dictator, making ideological demands, WITH the authority, police force etc to compel obedience, vs a lone person, who TRIES to make ideological demands of others, but WITHOUT any ability to enforce those demands. But I think they are BOTH "authoritarians"/"totalitarians"- Just one is MORE EFFECTIVE at being authoritarian, than the other. Would you say that a trans person (or worse, a """cis ally""") who constantly insists that everyone "respect their pronouns", and use terms like "birthing persons" or "folx who menstruate" AREN'T "authoritarians/totalitarians"? What about a hardcore Islamic fundamentalist (in a non-Muslim, Western nation) who tries to demand that everyone else can't ever criticize Islam, and tells you that you MUST adhere to Koranic laws, no bacon, no blaspheming, etc- Are these people NOT "totalitarians/authoritarians", REGARDLESS of whether they have the power to enforce their demands? They are still MAKING the demands, either way. They WANT to, and feel entitled to impose their will onto others, and don't believe that others have the same rights to make their own choices- They believe THEY have the right to make choices for EVERYONE... regardless of whether they can enact those beliefs, or not- Those are the traits that make someone "a totalitarian", in my book.(regardless of whether I share the beliefs they want to impose onto others, or not). By your definition, ONLY people in office, with some means to enforce their demands, can ever be "totalitarians"? And you draw no ideological distinction, between someone who says "I believe X... but I respect that YOU have a right to reject my beliefs, and instead believe Y", vs someone who says "I believe X, therefore X is the right answer, and EVERYONE must believe X..."? (Even if they CAN'T enforce the demands they're making?) I think that's a pretty sketchy definition of "totalitarian", tbh- And not a very useful one. I think there's a difference between "a totalitarian REGIME" (who DO have the means to enforce their demands), vs "a person with totalitarian BELIEFS" (which is anyone who feels ENTITLED to make ideological demands of others, regardless of whether they can enforce those demands, or not)
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 no. Telling people that they're cowards and are wrong for compromising women's language isn't totalitarian, it's FREE SPEECH. No "terf" is forcing laws or physical punishment, they are using their right to state exactly what they think when people use false language and lie as a "compromise". Just because it makes those who have decided to use false pronouns uncomfortable by being called out and put on blast for it, doesn't make it totalitarian. It makes them look like hypocrites... because they are and deep down, they know it's true. That's why they lie again, making false claims of someone else's free speech, when used in opposition to their beliefs is somehow compelled speech. Sorry but free speech goes both ways and free speech you don't like, doesn't automatically make it totalitarian. That's ridiculous
@@kittykat896I think the imperatives "must" and "should" when directed at an outcome is totalitarian. Pointing out the problems and advantages of adhering to a particular opinion is liberal discourse. Peter could have worded his proposition slightly differently and received a very different outcome.
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard has a virtual reading group that’s on youtube. They have videos of discussions of all Arendt’s work, including The Origins of Totalitarianism. Check the video of chapter 13 as to what totalitarianism is and how it differs from despotism and tyranny.
@AndyJarman but this isn't just about liberal discourse. Everyone isn't an academic. This is also about a difference in political goals. People are critiquing an intellectual inconsistency that makes concrete goals more difficult to achieve.
I thoroughly enjoyed this one - what a fantastic cocktail of unique perspectives, yet at the same time, stacked atop a common foundation of open, honest, insightful and courageous dialogue! Peter - you're killing it.
What a touching episode! What Andy said was very moving. Kudos to him for being so open and honest about his private life. Ive looked forward to being a mom my whole life, and I can’t imagine being faced with the impossibility of having a biological kid with your partner. Much love to him❤ (I also sympathize with him as a fellow dissident from PSU lol)
Isnt he?! Almost doll like. He looks so different here to when I first saw him years ago too. His honesty was very touching too, really bared his soul.
Peter, you need to sell/drop ship branded versions of those floor mats for educators and general practitioners. Merch is a great way to multiply the awareness of the method.
Sad that Andy has not met more elderly gay (or straight) men, and seen how many, due to their extra time in middle age, have developed multi generational friendships, and do have support in old age. Having children as insurance against loneliness in old age, is a terrible reason for becoming a parent, and not guaranteed to give you that anyway
"Insurance against loneliness" is a really reductive phrasing of what he was trying to get across; it's much deeper than that. Humans are not only a social species, but a sexually reproducing one, and as such, most humans, gay or straight, have an innate drive to pass on their lineage through offspring-- an innate desire to build a family unit and foster strong bonds of unconditional love within that family. That isn't to say that there aren't other kinds of relationships which can be as meaningful to an individual, but it just isn't the same; it isn't the same as, say, growing a child-- that shares your genetic lineage-- inside you for nine months and giving birth to it (or caring for your partner as she does), devoting the entirety of your life to that child's health, happiness and well-being, and then having that reciprocated by your child as you deteriorate in old age.
@somni2246 In your narrative, there is an innate desire not only for offspring but for a heterosexual mate as well. Like many people, I have no innate desire for that sort of thing whatsoever.
HJ had to explain what TERF means and the dudes had no idea. They actually had no idea about the acronym or what radical feminism on its own stood for. So they were looking at where Helen was positioning herself and followed her, seeing that she was the most clued up. But Helen wasn't asked why she didn't agree with radical feminist analysis so this wasn't even interesting to those who understood the question. So WHY were theses dudes getting to debate this question?! The dudes also had no idea what the question was referring to in the current moment, that is, the current debate among sex realists whether it is ok to pander to the linguistic preferences of some sex fantasists, or whether this very pandering plays into the hands of the political opposition. I don't think everyone has understood all of the arguments of either side. Far from it. Why didn't Peter bother explaining? From my perspective this was an extremely disappointing episode, especially since the acronym TERF, the slur that it is, is in the episode title and will draw in a lot of viewers. I also can't relate to all of the comments here that don't seem to clock the homophobia as well as the misogyny that's inherent in Andy's position - even if it is very open and personal. You CAN have a family as a gay couple. Even your own genetic offspring. There are plenty of lesbians and gays who have teamed up. If that's too frustrating for you, Andy, if you can't find anyone whom to have a biological child with, adopt! Ah, but no, wanting a child that's an extension of one's own biology AND not having to share it with a mother is what's at the root of Andy's fantasy, and I can't find anything commendable in that. What I find positive is that he rules out commercial child trade and the commercial farming of women's bodies for children. However he harbours the same fantasies as those who currently push the exploitation of women in the name of LGBTQ rights.
Gender non conforming children is NOT always tied to their future sexual orientation. Largely this may be the case, but not always. Especially in Helen's own case.
Agreed, my son was “effeminate” but (to our surprise) got a girlfriend after puberty, we joke he came out straight. But I think the majority do come out as gay.
This is WHY I like this Street Epistomology approach, is simply because it engages Spectrum Thinking which is sadly lacking in today’s tribal-partisan-extremist world. Social media, especially, encourages polarization and binary thinking. The real geniuses are spectrum thinkers.
i'm surprised and impressed at how candid Ngo it. yes, I think when discussing The Birds and The Bees with youth should include the COSTS of those "choices". most definitely. I was raised to be think outside group think. i was never educated to understand the consequences of being a human with no group.
Exactly my lady, I resent being told to do or think anything unilaterally by the mob. I’m a free thinking individual who will make up my own mind based on my own research, analysis, deductive reasoning and experiences. At no point in anyone’s life should unilateral demands for anything be put on me or any other human. Period.
I relate to Andy. I think a lot of men, getting into their 30's gay and straight realise they can't just chase male sexual desire that is sort of fun but pointless. I feel for him that even starting a long-term relationship there is no easy way to have a family.
Such a reality for any childless person. Some have children die before they do. Thats why you have to work on creating a 'friends family' . People you can fall back on whatever the circumstances
I had a problem with the word champion: We don't champion wheels, doors, footpaths, light swiches. They are just fundemental to everyday life. I would like "equality of opportunity" to share the status of the door.
For me (a white person from a mixed race family, if it's relevant, which it probably somewhat is), the "colourblind" discussion didn't really touch on why I don't think it's the optimal way of viewing the world, at least at this stage in the timeline of humanity. I think, by its very design, nuance is lost when someone claims to not see colour. Because the fact of race is a real, tangible way in which people see the world, and so I'd say that to claim not to see it isn't helpful - maybe even a bit of a copout to preclude oneself from any accusation of racial bias, rightly or wrongly. And I'm not one of those people who say "everyone is a bit racist" either - just that life is often experienced differently based on one's race and I think it's better to face up to that and be aware of it.
The colour blind idea goes against truth itself so is problematic, middle class, elitist, postmodern and lead to the first wave of PC language that demonised any way of explaining ethnicity or colour as racist, such as Halfcast, oriental, coloured etc. what if one wants to quickly and effectively describe a victim of a crime to help the police? Not describe a criminal that was the racist assumption of this 'colourblind' disruption or language. For example 'mixed race' has no visual meaning... Half cast does as it means half black have white specifically. Asian is a confused term as Asia is massive and covers many ethnicities and 3 different races. oriental is visually more specific. It made virtue signalling more important than truth. We DO see colour. The idea that we can't be decent to each other without seeing colour is hugely flawed and offensive.
I think people from majority migrant countries tend to discount or repress the currency of and links between culture and race. If large numbers, united by a common ancestry revolt against a country's indigenous majority (UK grooming gangs) denying race is just as pitiful and destructive as denying sex in a trans rape case.
People who are from other parts of the world bring with them different values and world outlooks. "Colourblindness" denies the obvious differences that come with migrants in terms of morality, group dynamics and moral norms. I worked with a lot of Muslim migrants to the West, I lived in the Middle East, there were profound mismatches and misunderstandings. I think the Palestinian/Isreali situation, the grooming gangs, and the differential impact C19 had on people of different races means it's important to identify and not attempt to deny race. The Americans in the room fail to understand this.
Great news Peter and Reid are looking to introduce this into schools. I wanted to introduce this in local government. It was too challeging for the HR department thpugh.
It's like when someone says "it's good enough for you to not be racist, you must be actively anti-racist." So she didn't want "everyone should champion."
Humans are “pack animals” and we are not supposed to live as lonely as we are in the society we have built up during the recent years. No human should have to spend their last years alone, dying alone, it means that they system is broken. In the best of worlds, our natural way of living would include a wider range of people than just the inner circle of family. Like this, homosexuals would not face loneliness at their final years as they would be part of a larger family where they would be considered important to the group. Unfortunately, a lot of people, even those who had children and a traditional family spends their final years and days alone, or in a home with other dying people at its best. It didn’t used to be like this. I believe we are focusing too much on the individual today, but in a way which is not benefiting us in the long run, or even the short.
Ngo's admitting to his youthful religious homophobic instincts are very honest. Thank you Ngo. This is the case with SO MANY gays raised in religious homophobic contexts.
Peter is envious of islands, he doesn't understand sea faring psyches. The rite of passage of setting sail has an indelible appreciation for sovereignty and integrity.
Peter, thank you for these important conversations. May I ask, how is the trans-gender movement not gender-appropriation? It seems to fit. Thanks in advance if you respond?
Terms: gender: historical definition of gender as related to sex, man, woman, he, she. Appropriation: In the same sense of cultural appropriation. I’m wondering why the same “woke” folk aren’t as upset as they are over so-called cultural appropriation. Thanks so much for your response!
The "woke" definition of gender doesn't at all change the identities of any men or women, it's just a definition able to be all-encompassing for everyone, whether they're a man, woman, born intersex (and thus not 100% one way or the other), or someone who doesn't feel connection to the identities of "man" or "woman". In different cultures, such as much of traditional Native American culture, there was recognition of a third gender, and even historical accounts exist of such people from hundreds of years ago. I'd recommend looking it up. Even though recognition of it is newer in American culture, throughout history and throughout different cultures there have always existed various ways of viewing "gender identity" (sense of identity regarding one's gender). So no, modifying a word's definition to be able to describe everyone without losing accuracy of describing anyone's preexisting identities is not gender appropriation.
I'm a woman who never wanted kids, and I have a lot of friends, including lots of gay people who won't be having children. I think our friendships are different to those my mother had at my age, for example - she was focusing on bringing up 3 kids alone at that time, so too busy to forge lasting friendships. I think old age in 30-40 years will look different to how it is now.
Be sure to catch the individual interviews with Helen, Andy, and Eric:
Helen Joyce: ua-cam.com/video/ZG9_lcln7FU/v-deo.html
Andy Ngo: ua-cam.com/video/KCXu8ax1QOo/v-deo.html
Eric Kaufmann: ua-cam.com/video/TlzLQO6bRdM/v-deo.html
leftism:
Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”.
In a vain attempt to legitimize their objectively-immoral propensities, leftists invariably replace accurate terms with blatant EUPHEMISMS, such as “gay”, “sex worker”, “pro-choice”, and “queer”, and of course, coin novel words for notions that cannot exist, particularly the nonsensical term, “transgender”. Furthermore, leftists are constantly inventing truly inane, vacuous words to demonize conservatives, such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” (which literally mean “fear of sameness” and “fear of change”, respectively).
In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit.
As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population.
According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia).
For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator!
This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles.
Fear not, for God is with you!
P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡
N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬
In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so, was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.
@@ADDISON396jeez are TRAs still dining out on this? 😂😂😂😂
Thank you for having me on. This is the most personal I’ve ever been on record.
Lots of love to you and your amazing work!❤
Thanks for being so open and honest!
Thank you for your honesty and vulnerability. It spoke very eloquently of the complexity of these issues and was a beautiful, painful corrective to just leaving this in the intellectual sphere. We need to see people as people, and thank you for courageously letting us see you.
You are a beautiful human, and your candid, thoughtful replies are what we will all take away from this. They mattered more.
You can be an uncle to my kids Andy. Stay up dude.
Great appreciation to Andy, he put by far the most skin in this game.
Agreed. Heart on the sleeve, quite brutally. He earned that hug from Helen.
Referring to his own inclinations as "degenerate" was in roughly equal measures sad as it was pathetic.
I suspect he believes this will further endear him to conservatives whom he perceives to be his allies. This, it should go without saying, is folly.
@@Muonium1I think he was referring to gay mens tendency to promiscuity not in the act of gay sex in of itself at least that’s how I interpreted it.
@@Muonium1 Way to miss the point. But I think that was on purpose, you are being disengenuous.
@@Umbrella2 Thank you.
Great to see Andy. Helen of course a living legend.
Oh man, Andy made me cry. Those (about growing old childless, and the ethics of surrogacy etc.) are exactly the things I struggle with a lot, and nobody (at least nobody gay) seems to want to talk about these things. I love him for openly talking about these and other things.
Having children is no guarantee you'll have them by your side when you die. In fact, I can't really think of any old people, apart from my Italian friend's grandmother, who spend their last years in the family home with their children and grandchildren.
@@balalaika852 There are no guarantees, obviously. But you don't need to live in the same house to benefit from the company of children and grandchildren. My mother lives alone, but the kids and grandkids are there all the time, and she visits them. She doesn't feel alone. When my father died in the hospital, everyone was there. I'll be lucky if some nieces and nephews still care about me when I'm old
If you're not somehow able to create relationships, make good friends who accompany you when you're sick, maybe/probably you shouldn't have children either.
This goes for gay folks or single women who insist on having children on their own.
Children are not born to fulfill needs of adults.
Women's bodies are not made to fulfill men's wishes
Surrogacy is human trafficking painted as “progress “ , where children are the product to buy and women the incubators to use . It’s regally incredible that this disgusting and misogynistic human trafficking is still legal in some countries ( in most western countries is actually illegal ) . I am gay Myself and I find the gay men who feel entitled to a woman’s body to create a child that will never have the right to ever pronounce the word mom , selfish monsters . No decent man would ever deprive a child from a mother .
I relate to Andy, I’m straight and married but was never able to have kids, I didn’t think about it too much til I spent a lot of time in palliative care with my mother. Obviously there is no guarantee of kids support but it is quite sobering as you get older without kids. Thanks for being honest Andy.
yes it isn't 100% an issue with gay men, where women are much better at building social and family structures there are many straight men who suddenly find out at 50 that there is a good chance that they will be retiring and growing old entirely alone with no partner, no family, no children and no friends
I have known people who have had children who are ignored by their children. Having children is no guarantee of closeness, care, etc. On the other hand, I have seen loving families make an effort to look after their childless aunts and uncles.
I hate this mentality that “poor me I don’t have kids to care about me when I’m old”. People with that mentality shouldn’t have kids. People who want to be good parents to a new generation with no expectation of return should. And you are right. Having them guarantees nothing re old age care and family visiting. You just have to live what is real and right for you. I am not so selfish as to complain that as I have no kids no one will care about me. I will be setting up my life to be someone so others want to care for or be able to afford to look after myself by paying someone to help. I have chosen a different path and won’t put guilt on others who have kids.
This is an excellent point! And is often overlooked when this is discussed.
Dear Andy, I thought you were great being so honest with so difficult issues.
By some weird coincident, my father came out as gay when he was almost 50. long story, (my mother splitt off before that and after his coming out they kept in touch).
So I got to know some of his new friends, other gay guys, probably not his lovers.
He always commented how it was very hard within the typical gay crowd to grow old, that a lot of them had issues with their own mortality.
He died at 83 (some complication and age) and I met some of his old friend. I know at least two couples who grow old and grey together
On the other hand, my older sister broke off all contact with my parents (different issues), what Im sayin is, that even if sou have kids it might be that you are still lonely when growing old. My mom is incredible and having a lot of friends and activities.
I wish you all the best and that you manage to view growing old somewhat relaxed and with some inner confidence.
And I really like or appreciate that you had taken into account all the problematic social issues around surrogacy
All the best, Anna
🤗💛👍🏽
Andy Ngo is a fascinating person. He is thoughtful, open and honest with an incredibly sharp mind. Overall, a very interesting episode.
Who else was expecting him to be shorter? Then again, nobody in that lineup is tall.
I've got to send out some love and respect for Andy for putting his true thoughts and feelings on the record here. Very heartfelt moments and wirthwhile human sharing of his experience.
Helen hugging Andy made me cry ❤
Andy is such a sweetheart. I appreciate his honesty so much, it is something that should be spoken of more openly. Helen is such a legend, and that hug was everything. She exudes a lot of this kind, motherly energy.
Your guests are always fabulous but these three...the best yet, I think.
Best episode yet and shout out to Andy 👍
What a cracking panel! Loved this episode - especially Andy’s reflections on growing older without children
My answer was The same as Helen’s. Freedom of speech is the highest value. Nobody should be made to champion anything.
Good call. She's just not into mass political movements. Grounded take, smart lady.
That's good. Freedom of speech is also freedom not to speak, not to move, mentally or physically, as well.
Are you okay with misogynistic speech?
@@OrwellsHousecat define misogynistic
@@silka4670 anything any wmn claims it to be, regardless of the truth of the matter
I LOVE this lady's personality. 😂😂 "its not stupid, but its not what ive got written down" fucking sent me 😂😂😂😂
Classic British humour (even though she's Irish xd)
Fellow Portlander, here. Thanks for calling out Ted Wheeler, enabler of the woke mob and one of those responsible for the destruction of a once beautiful city. I appreciate all of you for speaking out against this insanity.
I love Andy Ngo. He's such a lovely, honest, and brave person. Love his work too. This was a great SSE (don't mind if I do) with some of my favorite people.
I was curious to see what all these comments meant about Andy really having a moment to open up and wow ♡ really appreciate the honesty and opportunities for difficult conversations
Great, Helen, to see you at Peter again. To quote Mr Menno, I would happyly terf together with you, greetings from a German woman working abroad ( with dh = dear husband ,and two „selfgrown“ kids)
What does the bit in brackets mean? I cannot make sense of it in the slightest.
Wow, hell of a lineup!
Man, Andy spoke from the heart there. Very courageous.
Andy. 💚💚💚💚💚
Loved this. Made me sad and hopeful at the same time.
Eric Kaufmann had some great responses.
Thanks Peter.
Andy, you sure did make this straight woman cry...❤
Another round of great participants! Felt like a special one, very emotional and heartwarming.
Jennifer Bilek : "If you have the luxury of choosing to use accurate language that reflects the biological reality of sex and you choose not to for your own comfort, the only real choice you’ve made is to align with the system that is commodifying humanity and weakening the resistance against it.
People who are at the highest end of the pecking order that is below the ruling class often make this choice to secure some perks (speaking enagemenents, book deals, large philanthropic donations to their NGOs) that keep their own head above water, while they stand on the heads of those below, who have no choice. It’s reprehensible behavior at this stage of the situation to pose as support for the resistance to our ultimate commodification, while indulging one’s own individual feelings about using accurate language. It’s privileged activism and the only ones helped by it are those participating in it.
Furthermore, any gain from this pursuit is temporary since it ultimately feeds the system that will come for those who sell out like this, too.
It’s class warfare, same as it ever was."
Ha, I got Helen's answer on equality before she revealed it. I'm in agreement with her. She's making the case for consciousness lowering. I also had issue with the word championing.
Same for me, that word 'championing'.
I don't "champion" being ragefully anti-paedophile but it's still the worst thing I can possibly think to do to someone else, or to happen to someone else.
I had issues with the words “made to.”
Touching answer from Andy NGO on family❤
Helen hugging Andy 😭❤️
Great episode...but *that hug* was everything 🥹❤️
Yes! So glad Helen did that! Andy looked so uncomfortable after being so honest!
Made me misty-eyed! Love Helen even more and Andy even more what a brave and lovely person he is.
I watched so many Helen Joyce’s interviews that I immediately guessed she was on disagree for the first part of the phrase “everyone should champion ..”
Oh, Andy. You were so vulnerable. Thank you for sharing your heart, but I'm sorry for what you've endured.
huge respect for Andy here.
Very thought provoking thank you all
You’re welcome!
Peter, you should release this as a game for the Xmas season, with a pack of controversial questions!
Lots of fun and fury for all the family! 😁
We’ve thought about that.
Wow - stellar guests today! Great questions, lots of nuances to think about....
Thank you!
Great episode! A lot of what Andy said resonated with me
The cuddle given to Andy by Helen warms the cockles, so lovely.
Peter this was a brilliant one, very very eye-opening!!!
Thank you!!!
Yes I thought the cuddle was a lovely, came from the heart.
What a trio!
Aussie here....from a continent that is an island....🤣
Me too, hi
I question the premise but I look forward to watching when I'm free. Do women saying online that others shouldn't call men "she", especially men with AGP, have any power to enforce that? Do they have the power to punish ppl by forcing them out of their jobs or positions of prestige? What does totalitarian mean when it's strong opinions with no power that can be ignored?
I agree with those women, to the extent that I will ONLY use sex-based pronouns.
And I may try to PERSUADE others to do the same; That sex-independent "gender" is an evidence-free religious fiction, and that PRETENDING to believe in sex-independent "gender" is far more harmful than many people realise... But I would never try to DEMAND that others MUST use sex-based pronouns. Because that would be just as authoritarian (or "totalitarian" I guess. Is there a difference?) as the people who try to force ME to "respect" incorrect, wrong-sex pronouns.
And sure, there's a difference between a North Korean dictator, making ideological demands, WITH the authority, police force etc to compel obedience, vs a lone person, who TRIES to make ideological demands of others, but WITHOUT any ability to enforce those demands. But I think they are BOTH "authoritarians"/"totalitarians"- Just one is MORE EFFECTIVE at being authoritarian, than the other.
Would you say that a trans person (or worse, a """cis ally""") who constantly insists that everyone "respect their pronouns", and use terms like "birthing persons" or "folx who menstruate" AREN'T "authoritarians/totalitarians"? What about a hardcore Islamic fundamentalist (in a non-Muslim, Western nation) who tries to demand that everyone else can't ever criticize Islam, and tells you that you MUST adhere to Koranic laws, no bacon, no blaspheming, etc- Are these people NOT "totalitarians/authoritarians", REGARDLESS of whether they have the power to enforce their demands? They are still MAKING the demands, either way.
They WANT to, and feel entitled to impose their will onto others, and don't believe that others have the same rights to make their own choices- They believe THEY have the right to make choices for EVERYONE... regardless of whether they can enact those beliefs, or not- Those are the traits that make someone "a totalitarian", in my book.(regardless of whether I share the beliefs they want to impose onto others, or not).
By your definition, ONLY people in office, with some means to enforce their demands, can ever be "totalitarians"?
And you draw no ideological distinction, between someone who says "I believe X... but I respect that YOU have a right to reject my beliefs, and instead believe Y", vs someone who says "I believe X, therefore X is the right answer, and EVERYONE must believe X..."? (Even if they CAN'T enforce the demands they're making?)
I think that's a pretty sketchy definition of "totalitarian", tbh- And not a very useful one.
I think there's a difference between "a totalitarian REGIME" (who DO have the means to enforce their demands), vs "a person with totalitarian BELIEFS" (which is anyone who feels ENTITLED to make ideological demands of others, regardless of whether they can enforce those demands, or not)
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 no. Telling people that they're cowards and are wrong for compromising women's language isn't totalitarian, it's FREE SPEECH. No "terf" is forcing laws or physical punishment, they are using their right to state exactly what they think when people use false language and lie as a "compromise". Just because it makes those who have decided to use false pronouns uncomfortable by being called out and put on blast for it, doesn't make it totalitarian. It makes them look like hypocrites... because they are and deep down, they know it's true. That's why they lie again, making false claims of someone else's free speech, when used in opposition to their beliefs is somehow compelled speech.
Sorry but free speech goes both ways and free speech you don't like, doesn't automatically make it totalitarian. That's ridiculous
@@kittykat896I think the imperatives "must" and "should" when directed at an outcome is totalitarian.
Pointing out the problems and advantages of adhering to a particular opinion is liberal discourse.
Peter could have worded his proposition slightly differently and received a very different outcome.
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard has a virtual reading group that’s on youtube. They have videos of discussions of all Arendt’s work, including The Origins of Totalitarianism. Check the video of chapter 13 as to what totalitarianism is and how it differs from despotism and tyranny.
@AndyJarman but this isn't just about liberal discourse. Everyone isn't an academic. This is also about a difference in political goals. People are critiquing an intellectual inconsistency that makes concrete goals more difficult to achieve.
I thoroughly enjoyed this one - what a fantastic cocktail of unique perspectives, yet at the same time, stacked atop a common foundation of open, honest, insightful and courageous dialogue! Peter - you're killing it.
Imagine meeting these people down the pub! With Mr Menno, Gay Man of the Year
What a touching episode! What Andy said was very moving. Kudos to him for being so open and honest about his private life. Ive looked forward to being a mom my whole life, and I can’t imagine being faced with the impossibility of having a biological kid with your partner. Much love to him❤ (I also sympathize with him as a fellow dissident from PSU lol)
Andy is so utterly beautiful. Like an ephemeral looking 40s movie star, almost heartbreakingly beautiful, somehow, in the close up face shots.
Isnt he?! Almost doll like. He looks so different here to when I first saw him years ago too.
His honesty was very touching too, really bared his soul.
@@littleboots9800 yes, I know! I was very impressed with it, too!
The concept of "variant masculinity" is mind-blowing to me. It's what I have been looking for my entire life.
Andy has a great perspective about this; 24:00.
Andy - hope you are really enjoying your newest "home".
He's talking proper posh these days.
hahaha i really appreciate helen's argument in favour of the non-joiners. if everyone's a champion, no one's a champion.
Gonna watch this one tonight, but really looking forward to such a great group for a really thought provoking dialogue! 🔥
Excellent as always.
Thanks for listening
I love the challenging discussion!
Thank you so much
❤Haven't watched yet, ❤🎉Helen Joyce🎉❤ 'nuf said😊
Peter, you need to sell/drop ship branded versions of those floor mats for educators and general practitioners. Merch is a great way to multiply the awareness of the method.
Great discussion.
NO, we are fighting a war we won't actually win UNLESS we are hardliners. Calling it totalitarian is so effin idiotic.
Sad that Andy has not met more elderly gay (or straight) men, and seen how many, due to their extra time in middle age, have developed multi generational friendships, and do have support in old age. Having children as insurance against loneliness in old age, is a terrible reason for becoming a parent, and not guaranteed to give you that anyway
Well said…..solid reasoning. Nicely done sir.
"Insurance against loneliness" is a really reductive phrasing of what he was trying to get across; it's much deeper than that. Humans are not only a social species, but a sexually reproducing one, and as such, most humans, gay or straight, have an innate drive to pass on their lineage through offspring-- an innate desire to build a family unit and foster strong bonds of unconditional love within that family. That isn't to say that there aren't other kinds of relationships which can be as meaningful to an individual, but it just isn't the same; it isn't the same as, say, growing a child-- that shares your genetic lineage-- inside you for nine months and giving birth to it (or caring for your partner as she does), devoting the entirety of your life to that child's health, happiness and well-being, and then having that reciprocated by your child as you deteriorate in old age.
@somni2246 In your narrative, there is an innate desire not only for offspring but for a heterosexual mate as well. Like many people, I have no innate desire for that sort of thing whatsoever.
love andy and helen, so intelligent and well spoken! my apologies to eric I have not heard his content before but im sure hes lovely!
HJ had to explain what TERF means and the dudes had no idea. They actually had no idea about the acronym or what radical feminism on its own stood for. So they were looking at where Helen was positioning herself and followed her, seeing that she was the most clued up. But Helen wasn't asked why she didn't agree with radical feminist analysis so this wasn't even interesting to those who understood the question.
So WHY were theses dudes getting to debate this question?!
The dudes also had no idea what the question was referring to in the current moment, that is, the current debate among sex realists whether it is ok to pander to the linguistic preferences of some sex fantasists, or whether this very pandering plays into the hands of the political opposition.
I don't think everyone has understood all of the arguments of either side. Far from it.
Why didn't Peter bother explaining?
From my perspective this was an extremely disappointing episode, especially since the acronym TERF, the slur that it is, is in the episode title and will draw in a lot of viewers.
I also can't relate to all of the comments here that don't seem to clock the homophobia as well as the misogyny that's inherent in Andy's position - even if it is very open and personal.
You CAN have a family as a gay couple. Even your own genetic offspring. There are plenty of lesbians and gays who have teamed up. If that's too frustrating for you, Andy, if you can't find anyone whom to have a biological child with, adopt!
Ah, but no, wanting a child that's an extension of one's own biology AND not having to share it with a mother is what's at the root of Andy's fantasy, and I can't find anything commendable in that. What I find positive is that he rules out commercial child trade and the commercial farming of women's bodies for children. However he harbours the same fantasies as those who currently push the exploitation of women in the name of LGBTQ rights.
That was a good time thank you
Gender non conforming children is NOT always tied to their future sexual orientation. Largely this may be the case, but not always. Especially in Helen's own case.
Agreed, my son was “effeminate” but (to our surprise) got a girlfriend after puberty, we joke he came out straight. But I think the majority do come out as gay.
This was an amazing episode. PS Andy isn't an effeminate male in any way.
Thanks Peter, you really make one think about things we rarely do. Andy was very insightful. Well to all!
That hug at 26:53 between Helen and Andy warms my heart. Especially after that deep discussion on being gay and growing old childless.
This is WHY I like this Street Epistomology approach, is simply because it engages Spectrum Thinking which is sadly lacking in today’s tribal-partisan-extremist world. Social media, especially, encourages polarization and binary thinking. The real geniuses are spectrum thinkers.
i'm surprised and impressed at how candid Ngo it. yes, I think when discussing The Birds and The Bees with youth should include the COSTS of those "choices". most definitely. I was raised to be think outside group think. i was never educated to understand the consequences of being a human with no group.
Exactly my lady, I resent being told to do or think anything unilaterally by the mob. I’m a free thinking individual who will make up my own mind based on my own research, analysis, deductive reasoning and experiences. At no point in anyone’s life should unilateral demands for anything be put on me or any other human. Period.
23:42 please consider adoption if you would like a family or fostering x
I relate to Andy. I think a lot of men, getting into their 30's gay and straight realise they can't just chase male sexual desire that is sort of fun but pointless. I feel for him that even starting a long-term relationship there is no easy way to have a family.
This is my favorite gameshow.
The everyone bit is the problem. There literally is no such thing as *"everybody!."*
What do you mean there is not such thing as "everybody"?
@@Inquiringmind0 I mean that there is no topic that everybody will agree on. There is no such thing as a "consensus of everyone or everybody".
It was really hard to detect but I’ve noticed Peter has a thing for islands. Just a feeling.
You too?
A good conversation. Thank you!
Thanks for watching.
I love peter's obsession with islands lol
He doesn't understand the effect the sea has on a people.
Our differences make life interesting and should be celebrated.
The hug part🖤
People really have no clue of what the word "totalitarian" means!
Great stuff.... 👍
Helen Joyce said "dragooned"!
She is amazing.
Such a reality for any childless person. Some have children die before they do. Thats why you have to work on creating a 'friends family' . People you can fall back on whatever the circumstances
I had a problem with the word champion: We don't champion wheels, doors, footpaths, light swiches. They are just fundemental to everyday life. I would like "equality of opportunity" to share the status of the door.
For me (a white person from a mixed race family, if it's relevant, which it probably somewhat is), the "colourblind" discussion didn't really touch on why I don't think it's the optimal way of viewing the world, at least at this stage in the timeline of humanity. I think, by its very design, nuance is lost when someone claims to not see colour. Because the fact of race is a real, tangible way in which people see the world, and so I'd say that to claim not to see it isn't helpful - maybe even a bit of a copout to preclude oneself from any accusation of racial bias, rightly or wrongly. And I'm not one of those people who say "everyone is a bit racist" either - just that life is often experienced differently based on one's race and I think it's better to face up to that and be aware of it.
Agree. We need to have some good conversations to move forward before we can act like all are equal.
I agree but I think whether the law should be colorblind is another question. That's a big debate in the SCOTUS right now.
Demographics are destiny. Colorblindness is suicide.
The colour blind idea goes against truth itself so is problematic, middle class, elitist, postmodern and lead to the first wave of PC language that demonised any way of explaining ethnicity or colour as racist, such as
Halfcast, oriental, coloured etc. what if one wants to quickly and effectively describe a victim of a crime to help the police? Not describe a criminal that was the racist assumption of this 'colourblind' disruption or language.
For example 'mixed race' has no visual meaning... Half cast does as it means half black have white specifically. Asian is a confused term as Asia is massive and covers many ethnicities and 3 different races. oriental is visually more specific.
It made virtue signalling more important than truth.
We DO see colour. The idea that we can't be decent to each other without seeing colour is hugely flawed and offensive.
I think people from majority migrant countries tend to discount or repress the currency of and links between culture and race.
If large numbers, united by a common ancestry revolt against a country's indigenous majority (UK grooming gangs) denying race is just as pitiful and destructive as denying sex in a trans rape case.
People who are from other parts of the world bring with them different values and world outlooks.
"Colourblindness" denies the obvious differences that come with migrants in terms of morality, group dynamics and moral norms.
I worked with a lot of Muslim migrants to the West, I lived in the Middle East, there were profound mismatches and misunderstandings.
I think the Palestinian/Isreali situation, the grooming gangs, and the differential impact C19 had on people of different races means it's important to identify and not attempt to deny race.
The Americans in the room fail to understand this.
What is up with Peter and islands? And aren't continents just big islands?🤔
You sound like an islander
😅
He's jealous.
Great news Peter and Reid are looking to introduce this into schools.
I wanted to introduce this in local government. It was too challeging for the HR department thpugh.
Why was it too challenging?
26:52 was a really sweet gesture by Helen :) as the mother of a gay son, she communicated a lot to Andy with that hug.
It's like when someone says "it's good enough for you to not be racist, you must be actively anti-racist."
So she didn't want "everyone should champion."
“I’m pro-free speech, so people need to stop saying that thing I don’t like!” -Helen
Did you enjoy lying?
Humans are “pack animals” and we are not supposed to live as lonely as we are in the society we have built up during the recent years. No human should have to spend their last years alone, dying alone, it means that they system is broken. In the best of worlds, our natural way of living would include a wider range of people than just the inner circle of family. Like this, homosexuals would not face loneliness at their final years as they would be part of a larger family where they would be considered important to the group. Unfortunately, a lot of people, even those who had children and a traditional family spends their final years and days alone, or in a home with other dying people at its best. It didn’t used to be like this. I believe we are focusing too much on the individual today, but in a way which is not benefiting us in the long run, or even the short.
Close but no cigar is an American idiom, it comes from the practice of giving cigars out as prizes at carnivals.
Did you have a proper Israel debate? It should include the settlements claim (that Palestinian land was stolen).
Island round!! Love you Bogogo! 😂
Ngo's admitting to his youthful religious homophobic instincts are very honest. Thank you Ngo. This is the case with SO MANY gays raised in religious homophobic contexts.
If you could take a pill to change whether you were born as an islander or a continenter, but there's no pill to change back, would you take it?
Would love to see Peter answer this
Peter is envious of islands, he doesn't understand sea faring psyches. The rite of passage of setting sail has an indelible appreciation for sovereignty and integrity.
Peter calls the first one a 'fun' round. But let's face it, all of them are fun rounds.
True!
You went to Eton?? Street epistemology at Eton would be quite something!
Peter, thank you for these important conversations.
May I ask, how is the trans-gender movement not gender-appropriation? It seems to fit.
Thanks in advance if you respond?
It depends on how one defines those terms.
Terms: gender: historical definition of gender as related to sex, man, woman, he, she.
Appropriation: In the same sense of cultural appropriation.
I’m wondering why the same “woke” folk aren’t as upset as they are over so-called cultural appropriation.
Thanks so much for your response!
The "woke" definition of gender doesn't at all change the identities of any men or women, it's just a definition able to be all-encompassing for everyone, whether they're a man, woman, born intersex (and thus not 100% one way or the other), or someone who doesn't feel connection to the identities of "man" or "woman". In different cultures, such as much of traditional Native American culture, there was recognition of a third gender, and even historical accounts exist of such people from hundreds of years ago. I'd recommend looking it up. Even though recognition of it is newer in American culture, throughout history and throughout different cultures there have always existed various ways of viewing "gender identity" (sense of identity regarding one's gender).
So no, modifying a word's definition to be able to describe everyone without losing accuracy of describing anyone's preexisting identities is not gender appropriation.
31:35 So few people pronounce "Likert" scales properly. Amazing!
I'm a woman who never wanted kids, and I have a lot of friends, including lots of gay people who won't be having children. I think our friendships are different to those my mother had at my age, for example - she was focusing on bringing up 3 kids alone at that time, so too busy to forge lasting friendships. I think old age in 30-40 years will look different to how it is now.