mjoh090

This is a very poor attempt to reframe the actual issue: the unprecedented failure within Canadian society to protect children from a social contagion that exploits the normal uncertainty and emotional vulnerability associated with adolescence and identity formation. Rather than running interference for this insanity, why not prioritise truth over an identity rooted in vacuous empathy, and listen to the experiences of those who went through the very interventions you support and later escaped them with regret. If you want to know whether you have been captured by an ideology, assess your willingness to listen seriously to detransitioners and to trans-identifying individuals who recognise that gender dysphoria is fundamentally a psychological condition, not a metaphysical transformation of sex.

@BillboardChris You have either directly experienced trauma in your personal life related to trans people, or you yourself deep down are repressing transgender feelings. Most well adjusted adults do not latch on to a single issue like this and make it their entire identity like you have, Chris

This woman at the Pierre Poilievre townhall called me a freak after I spoke, and then came to interrupt me as I was speaking with a BC MLA and others. Like every defender of child abuse before her, she had nothing intelligent to say and ran away. Thankfully, she was the only one out of a room of several hundred who had a problem with me. The support was tremendous!

There seems to be a peculiar belief among individuals like her that inconvenient truths can be invalidated by the emotions they provoke. The entire currency of their argument is not reason, logic, or coherence, but emotional reaction - as though expressed emotion were itself rebuttal enough.

You are now retreating from your original claim. Cleese’s point was about the absence of visible public opposition. You answered that the notion Muslims do not oppose radical Islam “is just not true,” implying such opposition is publicly evident. But when asked to demonstrate that public opposition, you shifted instead to private internal belief: “not publicly protesting terrorism doesn’t mean they support it.” Those are different claims. You substituted “public opposition” with private “disapproval” because the former is clearly absent while the latter is largely unfalsifiable. Absence of public opposition does not prove support for terrorism, but sustained and widespread silence can reasonably be interpreted as social tolerance, acquiescence, or unwillingness to meaningfully confront the problem publicly. That was precisely Cleese’s point.

@mjoh090 @JohnCleese Tbh, I havent seen you publicly oppose this in a meaningful way. Do you have pictures of when you were protesting? You dirty terrorist supporter. Im sure you see the error in this reasoning... Just because they dont publicly protest terrorism, doesnt mean they support to it.

Not much point in starting a conversation with a psycho

@JessaSonom7005 @jk_rowling I believe Rowling was quoting Owen. Both arguments are his, and, as you rightly point out, they are contradictory - which is precisely Rowling’s point.

Follow the logic. Women are deluded and naive for thinking predatory and violent men can be kept out of women-only spaces. ‘They can rape you anywhere.’ However, trans-identified men can only be safe in women-only spaces, because no abuser would ever follow them in there.

@ForeignPacifist @JohnCleese I have yet to see meaningful public opposition from non-radical Muslims toward radical Muslims at any significant scale. If such opposition exists, please point to it, because doing so would directly falsify the premise that broad silence prevails.

@mjoh090 @JohnCleese Because Mr. Cleese isnt presenting an argument, but a truthism. The notion that non-radical Muslims do not oppose the radical Muslims or terrorists is just not true.

Strategy will be fine. Their primary source of capital raising has shifted to products like STRC. They can now raise large amounts of capital without a traditional fixed principal repayment obligation - or even a guaranteed obligation to maintain the yield itself - pushing much of the long-duration reflexive risk onto investors betting the capital-markets premium remains intact. If that premium collapses or capital inflows dry up, the downside is essentially absorbed by holders of the securities rather than by Strategy itself. Narrative and too-good-to-be-true yields are blinding investors to the fact that they are entering into a Faustian pact - trading the certainty of redemption for the seduction of a perpetual yield that Strategy is under no obligation to maintain. Strategy will likely be fine. Investors, not so much.

At some point people need to ask the uncomfortable question:What happens if Bitcoin enters a long bear market while Strategy is buried under massive debt?Everyone praises leverage during the bull market.Nobody talks about the risk when liquidity disappears.Saylor looks like a genius right now.But leverage has destroyed a lot of “geniuses” in financial history too.

This week we bought bonds, not bitcoin. The ₿itVac is charging.

A male taking estrogen to induce breast growth is still a male developing breast tissue under estrogenic stimulation. Mechanistically, it remains gynecomastia-like development in a male body. In any case, sex is defined by reproductive organisation around gamete production, not breast morphology.

reminder in light of some recent talking points that trans women are biologically female

Sex-based labels are sufficient. Trans women are undeniably male - that is precisely what the “trans” qualifier denotes: a male identifying as a woman, not a female becoming one. There is no conceptual confusion here. Females can therefore rightly maintain sex-segregated spaces on the basis of biological reality.

@mjoh090 @SeanPlunket That's why I think unisex toilets are the answer. It takes labels out of the equation.

Here’s the deal let’s keep the trans women out of the women’s loos and the rest of us fellas take one for the team and let the trans men use our space!

@pinpanth @SeanPlunket You are on the right path. The answer is toilets classified by biological sex, not by gender labels.

@SeanPlunket The answer is unisex toilets. That stops trans from thinking they have the right to go in womans toilets.

To be clear, intersex conditions are variations in sex characteristics that do not conform to typical binary presentations of male or female bodies. However, this does not imply the capacity to produce both viable male and female gametes. In humans, biological constraints prevent this from occurring. Intersex is therefore not a third sex. For a third sex to exist biologically, there would need to be a third type of gamete, and no such gamete exists. Even in a hypothetical case of true simultaneous hermaphroditism in humans, the most that could be said is that the individual embodied both sexes simultaneously - not that they constituted a third sex. In any event, true simultaneous hermaphroditism in humans is functionally biologically impossible due to the genetic, hormonal, and developmental mechanisms that enforce sexual pathway specificity and impose physiological constraints. Consequently, there are no documented cases of a human producing both viable sperm and viable ova.

National MP Vanessa Weenink tries to explain why National will potentially fold weak-kneed on the "Definition of Woman & Man" Bill despite voting for it in its 1st Reading. Not only does she tell complete porkies re the number of intersex (less than 2 in 10,000) but she argues that she doesn't know what the concerns or problems are warranting the need for this discussion... but then admits that she does know what they are. 🙄 @chrislynchmedia

It’s not harmless. It’s dystopian. The willingness of some to embrace fantasy as reality is deeply troubling, because it reflects a growing indifference to whether something is true, so long as it produces the desired emotional response. It is yet one more frontal assault on the value of objective truth. Truth matters because only a shared commitment to it allows bad ideas to die in the arena of debate instead of people dying from the consequences of those bad ideas.

@CogzBrian @xstryx @TechAheadAnkit @CRRJA5 Agreed! That sudden switch from puzzled to pure joy is contagious, even if it's AI-generated. Harmless feel-good clips like this are a nice break from the usual chaos. 😊

@zarahussain999 This is a pitiful attempt to sow division. This march is by the British, for the British, and that includes British Muslims who love British culture and view themselves as British.

A message to Muslims... Do not enter areas in London where Tommy Robinson's far-right Unite the Kingdom protest will be held. Your safety is at significant risk, especially women wearing Islamic clothing. The Muslim Council of Britain also issued a national warning and advice. It's a sad and depressing time when we have to issue these warnings in England, which is our HOME. #StaySafe

No, this march is against the government in general - and against you in particular - who have betrayed the British people, including British Muslims, through the imposition of an increasingly deranged DEI ideology. An ideology so consumed by performative empathy and moral vanity that it has lost any instinct for self-preservation, leaving adherents like you intoxicated by their own sense of virtue - an addiction to moral grandstanding so severe that it is willing to sacrifice social cohesion, public trust, and national identity in order to sustain the illusion of righteousness.

I’ll always champion peaceful protest. But the Unite the Kingdom march organisers are peddling hatred and division. We’ve already blocked visas for far-right agitators who want to come here to spew their extremist views. They don't speak for the decent, fair, respectful Britain I know.

No, it is not a march against Muslims. It is primarily a march against a government that has betrayed the British people - including British Muslims - through the imposition of an increasingly deranged DEI ideology. An ideology so consumed by performative empathy and moral vanity that it has lost the capacity for self-preservation, leaving its advocates intoxicated by their own sense of virtue while the country they govern steadily deteriorates.

@Keir_Starmer This is a far-right protest aimed at Muslims. Why should we be made to feel intimidated in Britain, our home? This protest should have been banned.

@Courtne91162652 @RyanSaavedra “Asking the question” isn’t neutral, it’s a rhetorical tactic. Pose a specific claim to a mass audience and you’ve already seeded and legitimized it without owning it. The distinction is semantic, not substantive.

@RyanSaavedra Asking the question is different than making the claim and this reporter knew that. She intentionally reframes shit for this purpose

NYT: "You've been talking on your show about whether Trump is the Antichrist" Tucker Carlson: "I have not said that" NYT: You said, "Here's a leader mocking the Gods of his ancestors, mocking the God of Gods, and exalting himself above them. Could this be the Antichrist?" TC: "I actually did not say 'could this be the Antichrist?'" NYT: ***plays clip of him saying exactly that*** TC: "I don't know where that comes from, but I know those words never left my lips"

@benryanwriter They don’t see misuse - they see duty. When outcomes are prioritised over truth, the conclusion is fixed first, and the data is interpreted to match.

Health Nerd has claimed the following about the Finnish study on youths attending gender clinics: "The primary outcome of the study was the number of psychiatric appointments—how many times kids saw a psychiatrist for any problem." This is false. The outcome measure was specialist psychiatric appointments. In Finland, speciality psychiatry is generally reserved for more severe mental health problems. That is why the study uses it as a proxy for serious mental health problems. So no, these were not appointments for any problem. I have told Health Nerd this over and over and over. But he has refused to acknowledge that his central thesis about this study is woefully incorrect. Instead, he has tried to gaslight me into thinking I'm the one who doesn't understand this study. And here you see him just doubling down and continuing to promote his essay about the study. I cannot begin to explain my shock when people with educational credentials and a large platform misuse both in this way. It undermines trust in science.

You’re conflating two different things. It’s not that individuals become impossible to recognise as their actual sex post-transition - it’s that their transgender identity becomes more visible. So your argument is: transition → reduced ability to hide their transgender identity → more discrimination → more psychiatric distress. So you’re attributing the increase to society’s response to transition rather than transition itself. That’s a plausible explanation, especially for individuals with genuine gender dysphoria.

@mjoh090 @restoretheW @TranscendentEva Before transitioning medically they have the chance to portray themselves as cîs. It becomes kinda impossible to do that at a certain point when medically transitioning

There's a new biased Finnish study that anti-trans orgs are jumping on, like the Cass Review. It claims gender-affirming care is harmful, BUT it didn't even measure mental health, despite what it says. It measured trips to the doctor. I'm debunking every logical fallacy here.

So your claim is that cross-sex presentation and social exposure typically only begin after transition? That is demonstrably not true. But even if I grant that, the step-change still occurs post-transition, so the increase in psychiatric morbidity still tracks with transition. By denying pre-transition presentation, you’re effectively amplifying transition as the variable that explains the increase.

@mjoh090 @AdrianRedac @restoretheW @TranscendentEva "Pre-transition often already involves cross-sex presentation and social exposure." Typically not really, you're already WAY off the mark.

That’s a possibility, but not a plausible explanation at that scale. Pre-transition often already involves cross-sex presentation and social exposure. If transition helps people blend in, there’s no clear reason discrimination would suddenly intensify enough to account for a 50-60% increase in psychiatric care.

@mjoh090 @restoretheW @TranscendentEva Ok and if that spike is bc they face a lot more transphobia?