Subscribe

Search Results

You can quote several words to match them as a full term:
"some text to search"
otherwise, the single words will be understood as distinct search terms.
ANY of the entered words would match

Bookmarks

From ... in Biology —

Identity Politics will destroy vital medical treatment for women

Dr.

Identity Politics will destroy vital medical treatment for women

Byram Bridle points out a social media message from the Canadian Cancer Society about the risk of cervical cancer in “trans women” and asks someone to explain to him the biology as “trans women” do not have a cervix.

Male versus female is one of the most basic categories of life, meaning not just human life but the life of animals and plants as well. This is biology. There is nothing you can do to change it.  Nowhere does this become more evident than when Queer Theory, such as “trans women,” attempts to dominate medicine that exclusively deals with women’s health.

The neo-Marxist Queer Theory exists, in a nutshell, to antagonise norms, “normativity” and the normal.  It requires scholars to transpose queer ideas of identity formation and social relations to texts that might otherwise be taken for granted as part of the dominant sex-gender-sexuality matrix.

It’s important to understand this is not about people with non-standard sexuality. This is about the power of words.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

I Am Very Confused, Please Teach Me About This Biology

This section is written by Dr. Byram Bridle, an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. One arm of his research program is dedicated to designing and optimising novel biotherapies for the treatment of cancers.

A social media message from the Canadian Cancer Society was just brought to my attention. As a cancer researcher, I like to try to stay abreast of developments in this area. I highly recommend screening to achieve early detection of cancers. The earlier a cancer is detected, the better the prognosis. However, I am genuinely confused by this message…

The full message is HERE.

At first, I thought that I must be holding onto an outdated definition of what a trans woman is. It was my understanding that a trans woman is biologically a male who self-identifies as a woman. But this would not make sense, because a biological male does not have a cervix and, therefore, any recommendation for screening for cervical cancer in a trans woman would be that they do not require this particular screening because they do not have a cervix.

It is my understanding that trans women can have what is essentially a tunnel surgically implemented into their groin area. But, it is also my understanding that these ‘tunnels’ are not seeded with any cells that are specific to cervical tissue. As such, it would seem to be a misnomer to call any cancer that develops in this ‘tunnel’ a cervical cancer. Cervical cancers typically arise from cells that are unique to a biologically genuine cervix.

So, in a state of great confusion, I searched for definitions of “trans woman”. I was hoping that the definition might have been expanded to include individuals who had a biologically natural cervix. Then I could understand this messaging from the Canadian Cancer Society. However, the multiple definitions that I found were all in agreement with my previous understanding. For example, here is one of the definitions…

“trans woman or trans–wom·an, trans·wom·an [ trans-w oom- uhn, tranz ] noun an adult who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is female“

So, it seems that I did have a proper grasp on the definition. So, this still leaves me extremely confused by this statement from the Canadian Cancer Society. I don’t understand how a biological male can have any risk of cervical cancer.

Perhaps they mean that trans women with surgical tunnelling of their groin should be screened for internal epithelial/skin cancers??? If so, these should not be referred to as cervical cancers; they are biologically distinct.

I am not convinced that cancers that might develop in a “neo-cervix” would be equivalent to genuine cervical cancers. I’m fairly certain that prognoses and responses to standard treatments would likely differ. And it would probably be important to let a pathologist know whether a sample has been taken from a genuine versus neo-cervix, or they could get very confused when looking through their microscope to assist with a diagnosis.

But I am open to correction on any of my biological understandings here.

I am not being facetious. As a scientist, I am genuinely open to advancing my understanding of biology. So, if any readers see how my thinking is incorrect, I would ask that you post your proposed correction(s) in the comments section [below Dr. Bridles’s article on Substack HERE.].

The Power of Words

In the section above, Dr. Bridle is attempting to reconcile biology with the ideology being pushed by the Canadian Cancer Society.  However, the two cannot be reconciled as the purpose of the ideology is to replace biology, what is normal, with nonsense, that “cervical cancer risks for trans women” exist.  The ideology is not concerned with facts but is concerned with using the power of words.

In an essay titled ‘Trans + Gender = Civilizational Collapse’, Christopher Lord explained that dictionaries typically give three or four definitions of the prefix “trans.” It means “on the other side of,” or it means “undergoing change” – as in translate, transform, transaction, transition, and many other familiar words.

When applied to sex and gender, “trans” is meaningless. The term “trans” has no objective or core meaning, but rather a vague meaning whose application changes as fashion changes … A fairly ordinary word component, “trans,” has been separated from its original meaning and taken on a new life as a carrier of glamour and magic.

It is not just the word “transgender” that is the problem. Any number of pseudo-intellectual terms have little by little crept in and invaded what used to be respectable areas of study, or driven them out completely and replaced them with mountains of treacherous and dangerous nonsense.

If you use meaningless language, preferring it in fact to plain and factual explanation, it is not [for example] education. It is not even really indoctrination, since if the doctrines themselves can’t be understood, how can you indoctrinate your followers? It is more like a religious system.

Trans + Gender = Civilizational Collapse, New Discourses, 2 April 2020

“Transgender” falls within Queer Theory which is particularly interested in, though not limited to, issues of sex, gender, and sexuality.  It is one of the major branches of thought within Critical Social Justice Theory. 

In very simple terms, Critical Social Justice Theory is an ideology that views people not as individual actors but rather as representatives of particular groups which are nested within systems of power.  It is a kind of religious worldview that seeks to enforce Critical Social Justice and produce more activists for Critical Social Justice. To establish a hold over society or a particular field, such as medicine, Critical Social Justice captures the narrative, tolerates no other view and is aggressive in silencing opposition.  Finally, the long-term future is secured through education.

Samantha Jones who has a PhD in Women’s Studies explained why she is “not woke anymore.” She wrote: “I no longer believe that the fundamental ideas of Women’s Studies, and of Critical Social Justice more generally, describe reality.”

Critical Social Justice ideology – if not beaten in the war of ideas – will destroy the liberal foundation of American society.  By liberal I mean principles including, but not limited to, constitutional republican government, equality under the law, due process, a commitment to reason and science, individual liberty, and freedom – of speech, of the press, and of religion. Because Critical Social Justice ideology is now the dominant paradigm in American academia, it has flowed into all other major societal institutions, the media, and even corporations.

I realised that Critical Social Justice ideology is not only intellectually vacuous; it is downright dangerous, and that the reason it has captivated so many minds is not because of the strength of its ideas, but because it has succeeded in silencing more reasonable and time-tested principles.

The University as the Woke Mission Field: A Dissident Women’s Studies PhD Speaks Out, New Discourses, 22 December 2020

Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR HELP…

We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.

Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…

Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Related content

Subscribe to The Article Feed

Don’t miss out on the latest articles. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only articles.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe