Violence isn’t debate or conversation: Speech, Disagreement & the muddy slope of Hate Speech censorship

Social Justice liberals would like to define spoken & published disagreement with their advocacy as violence.

Violence is, however, defined as:

Violence

*Violence* wouldn’t be people talking & speaking a debate. The Antifa in Western countries have to learn that disagreement through conversation IS NOT Violence.

As well, dissent expressed through conversation or debate is NOT Hate Speech:

Hate Speech

So this would mean that speaking & writing dissent must be allowed. You must have the right to disagree with people who are outraged advocates for their politics and beliefs.

Dissent

What happens when expressed dissent or disagreement are publicly censored & defined as violence?

People end up doing violence because their speech was heavily censored.

So whenever people were forbidden & outlawed to have a conversation or a debate, then usually everyone would show up at public spaces to express their dissent as violence.

Or whenever you couldn’t use your words, you eventually go into public spaces to use your body to protest and to foment.

Two examples would be:

1) The current 2017-2018 public dissent in Iran: Andy C. Ngo, #IranProtests

Jan-8_Andy-C-Ngo

OR

2) Any society & their government who are pro-censorship.

This would mean any society regardless of being a theocracy, democracy, or a communist country who chose to define speech as violence whenever this speech was publicly made by people as their own disagreement, debate or conversation that expressed their dissent.

This further means that Social Justice liberals, or the current Antifa, shouldn’t be pro-censorship toward any person or group of people they define as being “Privileged“.

Or this would mean that it’s a moral and practical error to censor one group of people you define as “Privileged” or as undeserving of the right to freely speak their disagreement in public spaces toward your beliefs & advocacy. You could very well in a decade or in the future end up being defined as “Privileged”, and feel a crack down of censorship on yourself and your right to speak your dissent.

So it’s important and an emergency to sustain the right of speech within public spaces that express dissent or disagreement. These spaces are university campuses, etc.

HOWEVER, whenever a society has chosen to be pro-censorship, then this has happened:

From the 20th century, examples would be Germany’s Third Reich Nazis (Socialists who were Fascists), Italy’s Benito Mussolini and his Italian Social Republic supporters (Socialists turned Fascists), the former Soviet Union’s Bolshevik Communists, China’s Chairman Mao Zedong and the Maoist Communists, or Cambodia’s Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge Communists. As well, there is North Korea’s Communist government of the Kims (currently Kim Jong Un).

The above examples are from the previous 20th century, and North Korea’s Communist government is still ruling.

Furthermore, there are MANY more examples of societies throughout history previous to the 20th century who went wrong whenever they became pro-censorship toward groups of people they defined as “Privileged” , “Deplorable” , or as “Unwanted”.

So Hate Speech is a muddy slippery slope. People, like Social Justice advocates, slip and make fickle decisions on what Hate Speech is and about who they target.

Any group of people could be defined as being Hate Speech propagandists, as being morally wrong, or not “on the right side of history” WHENEVER the Social Justice liberals get fussy and feel outrage at whomever. The Antifa could very much turn on their own IF such people dared to refute the goals of the Antifa. The Khmer Rouge certainly turned on their own.

So tolerance of speech can become less and less whenever people, like the Antifa, have no experience with what violence realistically is. They also would do real violence to silence speech from people who upset their feelings, but wouldn’t define their actions as real violence. Or the people who speak irksome ideas to refute the Antifa would be defined by the Antifa as doing violence because their speech to the Antifa is violence.

The Antifa, or Social Justice liberals, therefore have a major blindspot:

Violence is a physical force or use of your body to push, hit, shoot or blow up other people you don’t like, you want to silence and whom you perceive as “Privileged” , “Deplorable” , or as “Unwanted”. Violence isn’t conversation that expresses refutation, dissent or debate.

The lesson to learn is: Use your words & tolerate conversation. Otherwise, the people who refute the Antifa with conversation & debate will have only ONE option, which would be to use their body (not their words) to foment an opposition to the Antifa within public spaces.

The Antifa or Social Justice advocates must drop their righteous belief that ONLY they can have the right of free speech and expression. They’re righteous enough to keep themselves blind to gross mistakes they make while doing their militant advocacy.

One mistake the Antifa have been making is their arrogance. They are arrogant to believe that their speech couldn’t be wrong nor incite wrong actions to be done to those they hate and think of as “Privileged”.

Wilfrid Laurier University & its Social Justice adherents who censor

A storm of poopÂ đŸ’©Â has concluded at Wilfrid Laurier University.

This poopÂ đŸ’©Â debacle was caused by a trio and one more: Two professors, a bureaucrat, and a “them” from the Rainbow Centre.

The infamous three were: (1) Supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

The “one more” was Toby Finlay, the manager of the Rainbow Centre.

The trio attempted to censor a teaching assistant named Lindsay Shepherd.

Who-is-Lindsay-Shepherd

Lindsay is a student who’s doing a 12 month Master of the Arts at Wilfrid Laurier university. Her MA is specified as “Cultural Analysis & Social Theory“.

The English Communications class that Lindsay taught was CS101, “Canadian Communication in Context”.

Canadian-Communication-in-Context_CS101

CS101 was the class where “one or many” students spoke a complaint about her.

But the “one or many” only went to the university’s Rainbow Centre.

Wilfrid Laurier Rainbow Centre

The “one person or the group” spoke their complaint to the Rainbow Centre, and the manager of the Rainbow Centre (Toby Finlay) was the one who next informed (1) Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Herbert Pimlott & (3) Adria Joel to call a disciplinary meeting of Lindsay.

Why-was-a-complaint-made

CS101 was meant to teach the following to 1st year Communications students:

An Intro to key issues in Canadian mass communications from a variety of perspectives, including such topics as social history of mass media in Canada, public policy and politics, and popular culture.”

Canadian Communication in Context, or CS101, was meant to teach English grammar and beyond it.

Lindsay’s job as teaching assistant required her to introduce a classroom discussion about (1) Canadian public policy, (2) politics and (3) popular culture whenever those three concerned themselves with the English language.

An example that Lindsay tried to teach was the Jordan Peterson & Nicholas Matte debate from public television, which was TVOntario.

Link to the transcript is here: https://tvo.org/transcript/2396103/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech

Link to the full video is here:

The Peterson/Matte debate on The Agenda was a sample of the contentions that Canadians are right now discussing as their criticism of Bill C-16.

Bill-C16

Bill C-16 is a radical law because it makes pronouns compulsory for all Canadians to speak & write whenever a transgender person wants someone to describe “them” by “their” chosen pronoun. An example would be: “They” or “them” as a pronoun.

Bill C-16, as a language law, will extend protection against hate speech toward “gender identity” and “gender expression“.

Bill C-16 will add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Bill C-16 would, in all, amend both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

This legislation is summarily radical because laws about words & propaganda within a democracy only prohibit words being used as slurs.

So a language law for a democracy consistently prohibits words from being used as “hate speech” rather than enforcing an entire population to use certain words as “gender pronouns“.

Bill C-16, however, has already been done in communist & fascist countries. Think of “comrade” being legally required for all communists to speak & write while in public schools, and so on. North Korea would be an example of where people are compelled to use specific words.

An example would be from the Washington Post. It published on November 17th, 2017, the stories from Koreans who had escaped from North Korea.

One story was very telling. It was by “a university student, 대학생, who escaped in 2013“:

We had ideological education for 90 minutes every day. There was revolutionary history, lessons about Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un. Of course, they taught us about why we needed nuclear weapons, and they would tell us that we needed to make sacrifices in our daily lives so they could build these weapons and protect our country, keep the nation safe. I was so sick and tired of hearing about all this revolutionary history, I was so sick of calling everyone “comrade.” I didn’t care about any of that stuff.

As well, Jared Brown, the lead lawyer for Brown Litigation spoke the same misgivings about enforcement of words as pronouns on May 17th, 2017 at the Senate:

Jared Brown reasoned his own misgivings at the Senate’s third & last review of Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 in a university

Bill C-16 was wrongly assumed by “one or many” students to mean that a discussion about English pronouns must be censored. Someone from CS101 made a complaint to the Rainbow Centre about seeing a TVOntario clip of Jordan Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was next asked to a meeting with her supervising professor (1) Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

All three reprimanded Lindsay because they believed she was teaching Transphobia.

However, Lindsay had secretly recorded her meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel.

Her audio of her being policed & berated is found here:

Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy next apologized to Lindsay:

The apology is here:
https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/nov/apology-from-laurier-president-and-vice-chancellor.html

Herbert Pimlott & Adria Joel didn’t apologize.

Nathan Rambukkana only published an “open letter”:

The “open letter” is here:
https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/nov/open-letter-to-my-ta-lindsay-shepherd.html

Deborah MacLatchy finally concluded that Lindsay didn’t commit *hate speech* within the classroom of CS101.

Her statement is here: https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/dec/president-statement-re-independent-fact-finder-report.html

Meanwhile:

Michele Kramer, president of the Wilfrid Laurier Faculty Association, made a public statement that the faculty association “condemns violent speech“.

To myself, this statement was very questionable because Herbert Pimlott is also a Vice President of the faculty association:

Wilfrid-Laurier-Faculty-Assoc-Executive-Committee

So, the faculty association wants to define any “discussion” as “violence” when this speech is heard and righteous anger is felt toward it?

This is a pro-censorship problem. Any debate could be defined as violence because it only takes a few people to feel upset when hearing a “discussion” and to then define that speech as violence to silence it.

Gred Bird (or Uccello) certainly believes in censoring any spoken debate and writing that upsets anyone’s feelings:

Greg-Bird

He had run a petition that argued the safety of genderqueer & trans people on Wilfrid Laurier’s campus were threatened with violence.

In conjunction, Toby Finlay (the Rainbow Centre’s administrator) also repeatedly called any conversation about Lindsay as acts of violence:

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_01

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_02

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_03

WLU_Rainbow-Centre_statement_Speech-is-Violence_04

Swash_01

Finally, this is a summary of Wilfrid Laurier’s exposed attempt at censorship:

On Nov. 1st, Lindsay showed the students of CS101 a three-minute video clip from the TVO public affairs show “The Agenda.”

The video clip was from “Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech”, which was broadcast on Oct 27 2016.

Link to the full video is here:

Link to the transcript is here: https://tvo.org/transcript/2396103/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech

Lindsay said she was trying to demonstrate the theory that the structure of a language will affect the perception of the people who speak and write that language.

Lindsay-Shepherd_Dec-6th-Tweet

She said she had mentioned to the class that traditional beliefs of English speakers about gender have probably been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns of “he/him”, “she/her”, and “they/one/it” that for centuries have been the only gender pronouns in the English language.

Someone later after the class complained. That person complained despite the video clip was **neutrally** shown by Lindsay.

Lindsay Shepherd was next asked, through email, to a meeting with (1) her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

All three reprimanded Lindsay because they believed she was teaching Transphobia.

Lindsay had secretly recorded her meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel.

Her audio of her being policed & berated is found here:

She next contacted the National Post and other media. Christie Blatchford from the Post immediately replied. Blatchford next published an editorial about the attempt to shame and censor Lindsay. Blatchford called it:

Christie-Blatchford_Thought-Police-strike-again

Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy next apologized to Lindsay.

Nathan Rambukkana, however, only published an “open letter“.

Deborah MacLatchy followed up and ran an investigation, which concluded that Lindsay didn’t commit *hate speech* within the classroom of CS101.

MacLatchy also hired Robert Centa as a lawyer to represent the university during its inquiry. Howard Levitt also contacted Lindsay and became her lawyer. He did this as pro bono for her.

Howard Levitt discovered from Rob Centa that only a spoken complaint was made to the Rainbow Centre.

No-formal-complaint-filed

Specifically the complaint was spoken to Toby Finlay, whose own gender pronoun is “they” and “them”.

Toby is the main admin for the Rainbow Centre (or is the “them” who’s the top “they” that manages the Centre).

It was this “them” who contacted Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel to call a meeting with Lindsay so that she would be scolded.

During their tribunal, Herbert Pimlott, Nathan Rambukkana & Adria Joel intended to censor her.

All three ignored academic freedom because Lindsay is a teaching assistant.

Lindsay knew the trio were wrong. So she contacted the National Post and other media. Christie Blatchford from the Post immediately replied. Blatchford next published, “Thought police strike again as Wilfrid Laurier grad student is chastised for showing Jordan Peterson video“.

Other media soon followed and published their reporting of Lindsay’s experience of a kangaroo court at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Swash_02

From start to finish I watched Lindsay’s updates on twitter.

I also ran a petition.

I agreed with her because I see that the Humanities and Social Sciences in both Canadian and American universities are mostly populated with professors who are Social Justice acolytes.

Rather than being advocates, these professors (including TAs & students) behave as acolytes who value Social Justice as a dogma.

As Social Justice liberals, they righteously enforce their ideology through shame and censorship whenever their feelings are offended. Any disagreement to their maxim of “gender/race/etc. intersectionality” will cause them deep felt offense.

To myself, it was very problematic that Nathan Rambukkana had published an open letter to Lindsay Shepherd that ONLY provided his reasons that he taught by critical pedagogy and by the narrow worldview of Social Justice.

I personally see that Social Justice, as a righteous belief, can delude anyone into calling a Mao Zedong style kangaroo court to censor a teaching assistant. That ideology had certainly deluded Nathan Rambukkana.

As well “objectivity” — according to Rinaldo Walcott at OISE in the University of Toronto — is specifically and only “White Supremacist Logic”. It’s logic from White Supremacy within the university despite it being an intellectual neutrality and freedom to allow all ideas & sides to be investigated within a classroom.

Rinaldo Walcott made his opinion about White Supremacy known while he was on The Agenda, hosted by Steve Paikin, during the episode “Freedom of expression on campus“.

What he said at 19:33 to 19:51 was: “The university is deeply implicated [with] producing certain kinds of logics of white supremacy.“:

DRDsHj-WAAEnB0u

In all, I was troubled when I listened to Lindsay’s supervisors attempt their re-education of her by invoking the “Ontario Human Rights Act, Bill C-16 and Wilfrid Laurier’s Gendered Violence Prevention & Support policy“.

Their appeal and deferral to the above sounded exactly like a secular bureaucrat or religious official invoking the dogma of a political manifesto or a holy book.

Secular politics, political values or religious dogma that forbid academic freedom, objectivity, learning to debate, etc., have no place in a university. Values that are righteous and totalitarian have no place in a university. To myself, the intellectual freedom of the TA and students within the classroom must be supported.

Finally, Wilfrid Laurier is no longer a university to me. How can this place be a university when the Humanities & Social Sciences in it drivel Social Justice as a righteous doctrine that could never be questioned because it could never make gross mistakes?

Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria

Linda MacDonald: She runs an online support group for parents of kids, teens & young adults who are transgender.

Linda MacDonald’s website is this: www.parentsofrogdkids.com

However these parents at Linda’s support group want to challenge and critique the dominant beliefs about Transgender. They need to question all that’s done as medical surgery & hormones to a person’s body.

They need to question because both the child and the young adult are doing this trend: Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)

If you don’t like reading Quilette because you only believe any drivel that’s published by fallible scholars, then please read at this link (which links to the Journal of Adolescent Health).

Here’s an excerpt from JAH:

On average, 3.5 [let’s say 4] friends per group became gender dysphoric. Where friend group activities were known, 63.7% of friend groups mocked people who were not transgender or LGBTQ. Where popularity status was known, 64.2% of adolescents had an increase in popularity within the friend group after announcing they were transgender. AYAs received online advice that if they didn’t transition immediately they’d never be happy (31.7%) and that parents who didn’t agree to take them for hormones are abusive and transphobic (37.3%). AYAs expressed distrust of people who are not transgender (24.7%); stopped spending time with non-transgender friends (25.3%); withdrew from their families (46.5%), and expressed that they only trust information about gender dysphoria that comes from transgender sources (53.1%).

The above is only the start of academics trying to define if people feel they are transgender because:

1) They were without friends until they made friends with a LGBTQ clique,

2) They gained popularity & support from that clique of friends when they saw that Transgender to those friends meant status & acceptance,

Or

3) They really were Intersex.

As well, Linda MacDonald was undeservedly banned from this public support group:

Support Group for parents & caregivers of gender creative, trans, transgender children, youth or young adults

This group is run by two organizations in Ontario, which are publicly fundedFamily Services Ottawa and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario

I needed to get in contact with Linda MacDonald because she is doing a good thing.

My email to her:

Hello, I would like to introduce myself as a fellow Canadian mom. I write by a pen name or a pseudonym because I often write disagreement and questions.

I often write a minority opinion.

However, I know that writing as a minority is a good thing.

Having beliefs, which permit me to be skeptical and be a conscientious objector, is a good thing.

People, as a group or nation, can be wrong. History has many examples of groups or nations that made grave errors because they uncritically and righteously behaved according to their religion or to their political beliefs.

The group or nation have made errors. They have made severe and large mistakes while viewing their mistakes as correct and righteous. Whenever people have a consensus, most of them won’t dare to see this dominant narrative as available to be criticised.

Most often people agree and have a consensus because they don’t want to be called slurs (like ‘Bigot’, ‘Racist’, ‘Transphobe’), they don’t want to be shamed & told to feel guilt, and they don’t want to be excluded for showing they were skeptical and they needed to critically question.

Please get in contact with me. I think you’re fantastic. I would like to interview you. I actually would like to post your op-ed on my blog. You can write what you want. You can’t make me feel “Unsafe”.

Dotcamom Blog

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.