alexandra

-

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@RtrnSanity @feelsdesperate I can’t unthink this phrase it’s perfect. adult childishness + ideological stridency. Also hi!

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@stillnotking75 @wesyang Right- you don’t take down “Italians” you take down guys in lived in clannish murderous racketeer rings. What did you mean by asset forfeiture for people who committed no crime?

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@realMaalouf This is the most fervent Protestant woman ever.

[Tim Pettit @Tim_Pettit_]

In terms of aboriginal rights including title in Canada, it is important to note that these were made part of the constitution in 1982. This occurred when Canada repatriated its constitution.

In other words, the politicians who met to develop the constitution in 1982 decided to incorporate aboriginal rights and title into it.

Once it was made part of the constitution, it was left for the courts to interpret what this meant. That is the proper function of the courts. In relation to aboriginal rights and title, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada govern.

The Supreme Court of Canada then began to do its best to set out what aboriginal rights and title meant under the constitution. They issued a number of decisions on these issues. These decisions laid the legal basis for the Cowichan Tribes decision.

There may or may not be a disconnect now between where aboriginal rights and title have ended up and where Canadians and/or British Columbians believe such rights and title should be. Cowichan Tribes may suggest that one of the clear division points is private property. Canadians may wish to ask themselves if they want indigenous nations to have a constitutional right to the private property of Canadians.

Canadians and British Columbians should realize that while the decisions of the court are to be respected, the ultimate power of the people to amend their constitution to ensure that it serves Canadians lies with Canadians.

Thus, just as surely as aboriginal rights were brought into the constitution in 1982, it is within the lawful power of Canadians to amend that constitution and put guard rails up where the trajectory of court decisions does not accord with the view of Canadians.

In other words, courts interpret constitutions but Canadians decide what goes into their constitution.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

Wait- no one made a “deal” as you said, that if you did cosmetic surgery you would be given sex based protection and rights as if you are a woman. You have full rights as an *American man*, when in America. You can’t cosmetic surgery yourself into the rights of being Russian, or a child- no one made plastic surgery a “deal”.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

You are an American man, and granted all civil rights granted to American men. You aren’t entitled to women’s rights for obvious reasons- you are a man. JKRowling is addressing the gap between what you are, vs what you claim to be, not the rights structure itself- which she supports.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@TerryGlavin Could you take a break from name calling and explain what us morons miss? I’m trying to understand.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

Most people want *power over others* and to both *loved* and *worshipped* so 🤷🏻‍♀️ is want the key to making it real?

[Wesley Yang @wesyang]

Does an intense desire to be something you are not turn you into the thing you are not?

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@meghan_daum @herandrews WOMEN IN STEM™️ people are doing SOCIOLOGY not stem!

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@_CryMiaRiver @DavidPasko_ @cathmckenna

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@jennfrey Just as transgenderism as a legal goal, works by conflating sex and gender to argue for the erasure of Sex as the basis for access to spaces etc, we need a similar distinction here- feminization isn’t just the work of women (XX chromosomes) and many males (XY) engage!

[Claire Lehmann @clairlemon]

Victimhood culture stems from over-feminisation; honour culture from over-masculinisation. Dignity culture restrains both.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

Amazing comment on an amazing article.

[John Carter @martianwyrdlord]

One thing Helen misses in this otherwise excellent analysis is the role played by prestige. Cancel culture was enabled by the unique circumstance of women weaponizing the prestige of freshly feminized legacy institutions. So long as those institutions retained their prestige, what the people who ran them said really mattered.

Unfortunately for the ladies (but luckily for civilization), this is self-limiting, because prestige is fundamentally an emergent property of masculine competence hierarchies. We see this demonstrated whenever a profession becomes coded as women's work: its prestige immediately crashes. Feminists have complained about this for years, though of course they misunderstand the mechanism (prestige is a component of male sexual attractiveness, but not of female, and this is biologically hard-wired).

This prestige collapse is now affecting essentially every coopted, feminized institution - universities, news media, publishing houses, movie studios, large corporations, various government agencies, hospitals, courts, churches, all of them wield far less cultural power than they did even a few years ago. The only people who really care what these legacy institutions say are the women who took them over. To everyone else, the angry sounds they make are nothing more than background noise.

This is probably the main reason for the vibe shift. Once the prestige of feminized institutions declined below a certain threshold, their ability to enforce social consensus began to evaporate.

It's also probably no accident that the Trump administration seems to care a lot more about what the anons of the Online Right say than it does about the opinion of the universities or the news media. All the intelligent young men got pushed out of the institutions, and those ionized particles of free male energy then began to self-assemble online into an ad hoc competence hierarchy where prestige is measured by clout rather than professional degrees, job titles, or institutional affiliations. The anon swarm is entirely informal, meaning that its outcomes are not amenable to antidiscrimination legislation or to procedural manipulation; you can screw with the algo all you want but you can't actually force people to care what women say just because they're women (thereby placing women into the position of openly trading in thirst, which gets them attention but certainly doesn't mean that anyone has to pretend to take them seriously).

All that's happened so far is that people's attention has been redirected away from crazy woke females and towards the influencers of the online right. The fever has broken but society is a long way from recovered. The institutions are still under the control of crazy woke females, and this is extremely bad, especially because they are - for biological reasons related to childlessness - only going to get crazier as time goes on. Fortunately no one really cares what they say anymore, so as they throw tantrums as the institutions are reclaimed over the next decade or so, their protests won't register as anything but irrelevant toddler noise.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@mattyglesias Although she’s absolutely correct…

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

🎯

[Helen Andrews @herandrews]

How I came to see the “Great Feminization” as the most significant event of our century—and a potential threat to civilization. https://t.co/6R9wwGvUVh

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@_CryMiaRiver nails it. 🎯

[Stella O'Malley @stellaomalley3]

“The contagion didn’t spread because kids saw a psychiatric disorder — it spread because they saw a celebrated new identity.

Once WPATH declared it ‘natural and healthy,’ the media, schools, and culture followed. That was the trigger.”

🎧 Watch the full Beyond Gender episode: https://t.co/zUwBhjJ3Ru

[Wesley Yang @wesyang]

The core premise of "trans rights" is that a person's inner desire to falsify their sex can impose a duty on others to aid them in that falsification and that the state should enforce this duty.

This is of course not a right but a demand that violates the basic rights of others. It is antithetical to a liberal, pluralistic society, and the demand must be refused in total without qualification.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

Except Wokery is coercive Protestantism that feels it deserves power/control based on it being the most extreme Protestant expression of ‘the least shall go first’. We should move back to liberalism.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

I was thinking about @_CryMiaRiver’ and @stellaomalley3’s (reasonable) claim that we need to repsychopathologize kids who imagine they need to be in an opposite sex body- if you see the driver as the above, it will never work unless you address the root of all this: adults cheering kids who do this, universities giving attention and seats to kids who believe this. Psychopathologize the incentive system. It’s the only way, imho- otherwise kids will be confused in new ways.

[alexandra @Alexandraofthe1]

@ChanLPfa It’s a good impulse- fight oppression… it’s just intellectually so lazy, looking for easy markers then going all in and inviting zero nuance. Rushing to the desert table not noting a couple of kids got chemically sterilized along the way…