Wilfrid Laurier University is now censoring. To me this place is no longer a university.

Universities in Canada ARE in a trend of devolving from institutions that permit diverse ideas to be discussed to becoming places where a doctrine is taught. Any idea that challenges or is a deviation from that doctrine is censored because it is blasphemy.

My criticism sound familiar?

Does this sound familiar about a university turning into a place where blasphemy laws are enacted and enforced?

Medieval Catholic Christian Europe was the first place to institute universities (like the universities of Paris, Oxford & Cambridge). But these universities were places where theocratic education was only taught so as to enforce and enrich Christian theology & beliefs.

The current model of the university was only allowed to exist because of the 18th century European Enlightenment. The goal of the Enlightenment was to permit any and all ideas to be discussed in a humanities, liberal arts class, and also on a university campus.

However now in the 21st century, this model of the university — which permits free thought and debate of all ideas — is being transformed back into an institution that only permits ONE ideology and set of beliefs to be taught.

I’m looking at the end of university as I know it and the beginning of the university as the place of educating a specific religion. In this case, a specific POLITICALLY LEFT IDEOLOGY.

At least, the original university in Medieval Catholic Europe was straightforward instituted to only educate the Christian religion with some inclusion of Greek antiquity philosophy.

Universities in Canada right now are in DENIAL that they are turning into institutions of education that only permit ONE IDEOLOGY to be discussed. Denial is delusion.

Lindsay Shepherd at Wilfrid Laurier University has already been micromanaged and policed by the management of Wilfrid Laurier.

She is right while her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and acting manager Adria Joel of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support are the censors:

Macleans columnist Tabatha Southey: Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person

I used to read Macleans, but no longer am a devoted reader. My main reason is that the columnists of Macleans magazine write snarky or bitchy opinions about people, like Jordan Peterson, whom they don’t like.

Tabatha Southey is the typical Macleans columnist: She writes from her feelings of total annoyance with some guy she doesn’t like. I read her like a woman who’s bitching (yes, bitching) about a guy she hates and wants everyone else to agree with her and also hate.

No surprises here that Tabatha Southey wrote a nitpicky complaint about Jordan Peterson:

I’m a white woman like Tabatha. So I’m qualified to take issue with her being bitchy about Jordan Peterson MAINLY because he’s a white man who won’t use a trans woman or a trans man’s pronouns of address.

Columnist Tabatha Southey is really not that far off from being the next White Person With White Privilege, like Jordan Peterson, who’ll get nitpicked and snarked at by a magazine columnist MAINLY because of first being White and is secondly in disagreement with a trend.

Tabatha Southey really ISN’T that secure and far off from criticism.

She is next in line to be snarked at because she’s a White Woman (an automatic place of Privilege).

If Tabatha Southey ever DISAGREES with the trend of students on university & college campuses acting as a mob with their beliefs, she will get snarked at by a magazine columnist. Oh, yes, she will.

Gender appropriation could be done

Gender as a social construct was originally theorized and presented by Judith Butler.

Gender was thought by Butler as performative. Performative gender would mean that the identity and expression of your gender is created and maintained by choices you make and actions you do daily. Gender is performative because gender is what you do.

From Judith Butler:

Drag is not the putting on of a gender that belongs properly to some other group, i.e. an act of expropriation or appropriation that assumes that gender is the rightful property of sex, that “masculine” belongs to “male”  and “feminine” belongs to “female.” There is no “proper” gendera gender proper to one sex rather than another, which is in some sense that sex’s cultural property. — from Judith Butler’s essay “Imitation and Gender Insubordination” originally published in Inside Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories (Routledge, 1991)

So gender appropriation isn’t permitted to be valid because gender is ONLY looked at as a social construct. Performativity of gender forbids anyone from having a valid contention that appropriation of gender could be done.

To me, gender is more than a social construct. I seriously doubt the thinking and beliefs that gender is ONLY created by culture.

Biology is being excluded from Western beliefs about gender because social construction and gender performativity MUST exclude biology from informing those beliefs.

I would like to see more questions about biology and information from it being included. I would like to see biology also informing the dominant narrative we tell ourselves in our Western societies.

It’s interesting that cultural appropriation is a major contention in Western countries. It’s discussed and is believed by many people to be wrong. But gender appropriation isn’t a real issue in Western countries. It’s not discussed. It’s not found in Wikipedia.

I see a discrepancy occuring, which would be a double standard:

Cultural appropriation is a problem. It’s viewed as real. But trans women and trans men appropriating gender is not real and not a worthwhile topic.

The problem with rejecting Transrace while only accepting Transgender

Social constructs don’t explain truth about every topic. Social constructs fail in one major way: Social constructs ignore biology and the knowledge we have about biology.

To me, the support for Transgender and the rejection of Transrace is hypocritical when you ONLY use social constructs as your facts to make you right.

The question is:

If transgender is okay, then transrace should also be okay? Both Gender and Race are believed to be social constructs.

Again I see that both gender and race are perceived through the lens of social constructs. So transgender receiving favour while transrace is dismissed is a hypocrisy.

However, I don’t bother with applying social construction to EVERYTHING because the above hypocrisy occurs.

Social construction is a narrow perceptive because it excludes biology. Biological determinism has to be avoided.

However, biology is important because it’s the physical DNA and cells that make us exist and sentient. It’s stupid to ignore biology. Without biology, we wouldn’t exist.

As well, biological women face having their biology minimized and dismissed when they are TERFs who debate trans women.

TERFs — the biological women who don’t accept trans women — have a worthwhile criticism that transitioning from one gender to the next is an action of appropriation.

Some biological women among the TERFs take issue with trans women too much minimizing the biological requisite to being a woman, and overemphasizing their own thoughts and feelings about being the gender of a woman.

Thinking and believing you’re a woman won’t transition your chromosomes and DNA. What’s interesting, though, is that you can transition the sex of your brain. You can change — by treatment with sex hormones — the white matter of your brain from being masculine structured to being feminine structured and vice versa.

Also a note from those who research the transexual brain:

Hormone treatment affects the gross brain morphology as well as the white matter microstructure of the brain. Changes are to be expected when hormones reach the brain in pharmacological doses

Consequently, you cannot take the hormone-treated transsexual brain patterns as evidence of the transsexual brain phenotype because the treatment alters brain morphology and obscures the pre-treatment brain pattern. — “A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transexualism

Anyway, moving along:

TERFs mostly use social construction to argue with trans women.

Social construction has the pitfall of creating double standards.

When relying on social constructs, TERFs argue the point of patriarchy.

To TERFs, a biological man was born into the social construct or culture of male privilege. Male privilege isn’t enjoyed by biological women because that power deferred to men in a patriarchy isn’t granted to the gender of women.

The trans woman has experienced and been oblivious of male privilege while the biological women can see that privilege in action. 

Male privilege functions like White Privilege. The argument about white privilege arose from Peggy McIntosh looking at male privilege.

However, I want to demonstrate that the support for Transgender and the rejection of Transrace is hypocritical when you ONLY use social constructs as your facts to make you right.

If transgender is okay, then transrace should also be okay? Both Gender and Race are believed to be social constructs.

The problem with social construction being applied to everything, like gender and race, will make everything subject to the ideology or opinion of social construction.

Permitting gender to be fluid but not race is a hypocritical discrepancy because social construction is applied to both gender and race, and race is forbidden from being fluid.

This is why I’m skeptical of social constructs being the grand unified theory on being human. Social constructs fall short and cannot demonstrate the truth about everything.

Transrace vs. Transgender

Adam Wheeler (a trans woman) renamed herself Ja Du and now identifies as Transfilipino:

Will transrace be accepted in a Western country?

Reasons currently used to support transgender choices could also be used as argument for transrace.

Why not? 🤔

The reasons to be transgender are many and could be summed up as:

1) My gender was chosen or assigned for me by looking at my genitals when I was born. Also when I was a kid and then an adult my assigned gender wasn’t the gender I identified with.

2) Although being born with the genitals of a boy, with the chromosomes of a boy, I was born a girl. I was born a girl because I think I’m a girl and I identify as a girl.

3) Gender, like race, is a social construct. A social construct is made by people to organize people as a culture, society, community or country.

4) A social construct is fluid. Culture would be an example. The construct of culture is fluid and it changes as people change their ideas and beliefs.

5) Determinism, like biological determinism, isn’t a truth. 

Current knowledge of biology is made by people. People are also fallible. So the knowledge made by people could be a dogma. Appealing to the knowledge of biology is the same as appealing to the dogma of a religion.

With the above said, I always question present-day reasons used by people to transgender.

By question I mean, I critique.

The social construct perspective that’s currently used to explain everything is a perspective that I critique because it’s too dominant. A dominant belief often turns into a cultural narrative that’s rigid and unforgiving whenever it’s challenged.

Right now transgender is a part of Western cultures. Transgender is accepted in Canada and has the federal Bill C-16 and different legislation from the provinces to protect it.

Should transrace next be accepted?

Transrace could be accepted because why not?

Cultural appropriation could be argued.

However, “gender appropriation” could also be argued against the decision to transgender.

Why not argue support for the feminists (T.E.R.Fs) who are bothered by biological men transitioning their gender to being a woman? To the TERF feminists transgender is appropriation of the human female gender.

But what else aside from cultural appropriation could be argued as a reason to reject transrace?

An argument based on one item, like cultural appropriation, isn’t enough. Or one reason could be enough when you want to taboo, prohibit or outlaw the topic.

However, transrace could be accepted like transgender.

Gender and race are both argued to be social constructs. Social constructs are fluid, and so they change because people change their ideas and beliefs.

Why not accept transrace?

But transrace won’t be accepted.

Membership or belonging to a race is more defended and contentious in any country compared to sharing membership and belonging to a gender.

Race is much more a nation-state, tribal and a community. The people who are members of an ethnicity are more invested and protective of their ethnic identity. 

You must be born from those members or adopted by those members for you to be assigned that ethnic identity. You can’t transition your race because that is viewed as appropriation.

The right of membership and belonging isn’t an individual’s right, but the rights of a community. Acceptance is up to the people who are members of the ethnicity.