A roundup of news and commentary from around the interwebs.
***
The head of a British Columbian civil liberties group that wrote “burn it all down” in response to churches being set aflame or vandalized in the wake of revelations about residential school cemeteries has resigned.
***
Churches are finally open in Manitoba, but with limited attendance and required masking. This in itself is not extraordinary—except for the fact that masks are not required in theatres, bars, casinos, or other venues. Unless the virus is as apparently bigoted as the provincial government, there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable explanation for this. These measures are seem specifically designed to drive conspiracy theories and stoke distrust in government. It is hard to see how such stupid mistakes could be made—if they are mistakes.
It has been one year since pro-life hero Mike Adams died tragically. I interviewed his friend, apologist Frank Turek, on his life and work at the time.
If you want a glimpse into where radical individualism and total autonomy has taken us, give this review of the British man who now identifies as a Korean pop star a read. It is both interesting and very disturbing.
***
This ongoing series from Tal Bachman at Steyn Online on the evils of so-called “gender affirmation surgery” is an absolute must-read. An excerpt from his latest:
This is a fraud, but also much more than fraud. It is radically invasive, large-scale, irreversible, permanently life-altering physical damage. The damage isn’t limited to the amputation and mutilation of sex organs. For women trying to become men, it also includes damage in the form of hormone treatment which doubles the incidence of heart attack, stroke, and blood clotting (see also here and here). For men trying to become women…well, as one doctor put it, “There hasn’t been a lot of research on the use of estrogen by transwomen. This is why there may be other risks that may exist that doctors aren’t aware of”. Hm.
In any case, the evidence—gathered from over a hundred studies conducted over many years—is stark and consistent: genital amputation, over time, does not alleviate the distress of people struggling with sexual identity.
And yet…
…almost everyone in the, um, “scientific” establishment continues to support genital amputation as a genuine treatment option: family doctors, psychologists, psychiatrist, endocrinologists, urologists, gynecologists, nurses, therapists, medical researchers, everyone. Even though it doesn’t work.
Why?
Surgeons continue to perform it even though it doesn’t work.
Why?
Hospitals continue to host it even though it doesn’t work.
Why?
Legislators avoid regulating or curtailing it as a fraudulent treatment even though it doesn’t work.
Why?
The tyrants now steering our Giant Woke Monoculture, and all their local gauleiters on school boards and city councils and newspaper staffs, continue to demand we all celebrate it, even though it doesn’t work.
Why?
More questions: How does continuing to recommend a “cure” which we know isn’t a cure at all—especially one entailing complete removal of sex organs—qualify as “science”? And not, say, the most horrific form of superstitious barbarism and medical malpractice? How is it the product of reason or evidence? How does it represent “progress”? Or “compassion”?
Given that we know genital amputation does not work over time, how does its practice not violate the principle of primum non nocere—”first, do no harm” —at the heart of every solemn oath taken by every so-called “health professional” who recommends it?
Read the whole thing—and the whole series. It really is worth it.
