Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[karaddin]

Because you're caring. Thats why I call it nihilistic, because the very act of caring, of trying to engage, of showing you think things can be important is an automatic loss for you. Unless that caring is about some dumb faux outrage in gaming and visual media, then its suddenly all consuming, world destroying important. See the latest about Star Wars, doesn't matter who you are, you show that emotion about anything else and you've lost.

Caring is being a cuck, unless it's caring about not being a cuck which is really how they seem to view media not catering exclusively to them. Also I just cannot take that word seriously, doesn't matter about the vile sexism and racism behind it, I just read it and start laughing at anyone the uses it and their revealed obsessions.

[mankytoes]

17 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

If you're dude arguing against these things, you're a white knight. You'll be taken as seriously as they do a feminist or...well, any woman really. 

Yeah, I get that all the time, white knight, SJW, PC, radical feminist. I just tell them, you should see how actual feminists react to me!

[Theda Baratheon]

37 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Yeah, I get that all the time, white knight, SJW, PC, radical feminist. I just tell them, you should see how actual feminists react to me!

Hmm. I dunno if it helps to be flippant against ''actual feminists'' either though, we already have enough harpy stereotypes to deal with

[mankytoes]

26 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Hmm. I dunno if it helps to be flippant against ''actual feminists'' either though, we already have enough harpy stereotypes to deal with

Be nicer to me then (not you specifically)!

Seriously though, I've always found feminists particularly quick to get aggressive and call names, and all that. You always get it in politics, and I'm definitely not claming to be innocent in this. But I've found particularly notable is the reaction from feminists whose views aren't actually that different from mine. I can only think of Marxists who, in my experience, will get so heated over relatively minor differences. (You might disagree with me viewing feminism as a political ideology, but that's how I learned about it, and I still view it that way).

I can go further into why I think that's the case, but I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing I was asked not to talk about? Honestly, I'm still not 100% clear on the rules.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

21 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Be nicer to me then (not you specifically)!

Seriously though, I've always found feminists particularly quick to get aggressive and call names, and all that. You always get it in politics, and I'm definitely not claming to be innocent in this. But I've found particularly notable is the reaction from feminists whose views aren't actually that different from mine. I can only think of Marxists who, in my experience, will get so heated over relatively minor differences. (You might disagree with me viewing feminism as a political ideology, but that's how I learned about it, and I still view it that way).

I can go further into why I think that's the case, but I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing I was asked not to talk about? Honestly, I'm still not 100% clear on the rules.

We once had a three page "discussion" in this very thread about whether men should style themselves "feminists" or "allies."  I have no time for that kind of BS, and I hate the "no true Scotsman" nonsense.  But any ideology has its orthodoxies, its heresies and its mysteries.  It's part of defining an in-group and feminists are as guilty as any other group.  I personally don't have a lot of patience for definitional squabbles.  However, like many things that I don't value, I've learned over time that definitional arguments have purpose.  It's just not a purpose I can engage in because I get too frustrated.

[butterbumps!]

31 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Be nicer to me then (not you specifically)!

Seriously though, I've always found feminists particularly quick to get aggressive and call names, and all that. You always get it in politics, and I'm definitely not claming to be innocent in this. But I've found particularly notable is the reaction from feminists whose views aren't actually that different from mine. I can only think of Marxists who, in my experience, will get so heated over relatively minor differences. (You might disagree with me viewing feminism as a political ideology, but that's how I learned about it, and I still view it that way).

I can go further into why I think that's the case, but I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing I was asked not to talk about? Honestly, I'm still not 100% clear on the rules.

Have you considered-- truly considered-- why that might be?   Both on your individual end (such as your own expectations in how you "should" be treated, whether what you want to say is actually coming across as such, tone discrepancies, and so forth) as well as contextual reasons why feminists might be suspicious/ annoyed/ on guard?   

[mankytoes]

56 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

We once had a three page "discussion" in this very thread about whether men should style themselves "feminists" or "allies."  I have no time for that kind of BS, and I hate the "no true Scotsman" nonsense.  But any ideology has its orthodoxies, its heresies and its mysteries.  It's part of defining an in-group and feminists are as guilty as any other group.  I personally don't have a lot of patience for definitional squabbles.  However, like many things that I don't value, I've learned over time that definitional arguments have purpose.  It's just not a purpose I can engage in because I get too frustrated.

Cool, I'll have a look. I agree that labelling is generally pretty pointless. Some people have said "if you think women are equal, you're a feminist", fine then, I'm a feminist. Some have said "if you're a man, you can't be a feminist", fine then, I'm not a feminist. I believe in and support what is important to me, I can't see why that stuff really matters.

Yeah, if you want to unite a group, it's very helpful to agree on what you all believe in. It's finding that balance between pragmatism and staying true to what you believe in that matters. The far left, for example, tend to be terrible at this, hence the "People's Front of Judea" type splitting.

52 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Have you considered-- truly considered-- why that might be?   Both on your individual end (such as your own expectations in how you "should" be treated, whether what you want to say is actually coming across as such, tone discrepancies, and so forth) as well as contextual reasons why feminists might be suspicious/ annoyed/ on guard?   

Yeah, absolutely. I think feminists get trolled and abused probably more than anyone else (online at least), and you can see that in how they react, often defensively from the start. I also think feminism has a tendancy towards radicalism, possibly because people who are more moderate about gender equality will often be content that their goals will be met by following socialist or liberal movements. I think feminism also appeals to people interested in female identity, and that leads to this whole "identity politics" thing that people keep going on about at the moment, which leads to a lot of "Othering" (the straight, white, male boogeyman).

How I act is definitely a factor, because I am a contrarian. However, I don't think I'm being more of a contrarian to feminists than anyone else, so it's a relative thing.

I don't think feminists have a moral obligation to change how they interact with people, I do personally think that these things do put people off, they do alienate people, and they do contribute to the rise in right wing populism. There's this kind of "fuck you" feminism, and I get it, I love acting like that, it feels great. Does it cause more harm than good? I'd say probably, but I'm not saying I'm better placed to make that judgement than anyone else.

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Be nicer to me then (not you specifically)!

Seriously though, I've always found feminists particularly quick to get aggressive and call names, and all that. You always get it in politics, and I'm definitely not claming to be innocent in this. But I've found particularly notable is the reaction from feminists whose views aren't actually that different from mine. I can only think of Marxists who, in my experience, will get so heated over relatively minor differences. (You might disagree with me viewing feminism as a political ideology, but that's how I learned about it, and I still view it that way).

I can go further into why I think that's the case, but I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing I was asked not to talk about? Honestly, I'm still not 100% clear on the rules.

I am so sick of the oppressed being told how to behave by their oppressors.  Thank you for mansplaining how feminists should behave.  When you are paid less for the same work or not hired at all, because of your gender, come back and explain how it isn't nice to call people what they actually are.

If you view people wanting to be treated equally with all other human beings, as a political ideology, I have to assume that your political ideology is to oppose such equality.  wouldn't you be happier in a MRA thread?

[mankytoes]

3 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I am so sick of the oppressed being told how to behave by their oppressors.  Thank you for mansplaining how feminists should behave.  When you are paid less for the same work or not hired at all, because of your gender, come back and explain how it isn't nice to call people what they actually are.

If you view people wanting to be treated equally with all other human beings, as a political ideology, I have to assume that your political ideology is to oppose such equality.  wouldn't you be happier in a MRA thread?

I'm not oppressing anyone, and I hate the term "mansplaining". I have as much right to an opinion as you do. If what I say is wrong, please point out why, but don't bring my genitals into it. That's regressive. You can behave as you wish, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm telling you my opinion on whether your current ways of communicating are working or not. If you feel differently, I'd like to know it what ways you feel they are effective.

All the women I work with are paid the same as me, and in my work environment more women than men are hired, and most of the senior staff are women. Just because something is true on average, it doesn't mean it is true to every individual.

But that isn't how I view feminism, and as I showed earlier, that isn't how most people where I live (the UK) view feminism (I showed a survey where people overwhelmingly said they believe in gender equality, but don't indentify as feminist).

Why don't you view feminism as a political ideology? Do you think it isn't political, or it isn't an ideology? That wasn't supposed to be an insult, I don't think something being a political ideology is a bad thing.

I wouldn't be happier in a MRA thread, no. I've tried talking with them, but they're far more interested in bashing feminism than actually helping with men's issues. I do believe men need support, in things like paternity, violence, emotional support and addiction, but I think these goals are actually best achieved by working with feminists, because the causes are often the same. That's pretty much the opposite of what they believe, they think the more feminists achieve, the worse things will get for men.

In any case, I wouldn't just want to be in a thread of people who agree with me, I wouldn't learn anything, I'd rather debate with people of all differing opinions. You might think I'm a cunt, but I bet you would have hated me a lot more ten years ago.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

@mankytoes @Robin Of House Hill throwing out a couple of thoughts:

1.  Major positive change for a disadvantaged group does not happen simply by asking nicely.  In both the US AND the UK, merely obtaining the right to vote involved a fair bit of unrest.  However, building a consensus is often also part of a successful strategy. I personally think you need both disruptive protest and incremental consensus building.  The problem is that the in group (particularly if they are early adopters of the future consensus view) often views the former actions as both unnecessary and threatening. I think that drives a lot of frustration.

2.  I think any umbrella ideology has the same problems with definitionalism and name calling (both inter and extra nicene).  You see it on the right here as well as the left.  In a "movement" that purports to speak for slightly over half the population you are bound to have different views on strategy and priority.  There are political ideologies within as well as without.  And there is a political nature to it.  There must be on some level.  The idea that humans are created equal is at root a creature of political philosophy.

[Theda Baratheon]

Also - if you can, pleas stop equating genitals to gender or just...plain stop bringing up genitals at all

[mankytoes]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@mankytoes @Robin Of House Hill throwing out a couple of thoughts:

1.  Major positive change for a disadvantaged group does not happen simply by asking nicely.  In both the US AND the UK, merely obtaining the right to vote involved a fair bit of unrest.  However, building a consensus is often also part of a successful strategy. I personally think you need both disruptive protest and incremental consensus building.  The problem is that the in group (particularly if they are early adopters of the future consensus view) often views the former actions as both unnecessary and threatening. I think that drives a lot of frustration.

2.  I think any umbrella ideology has the same problems with definitionalism and name calling (both inter and extra nicene).  You see it on the right here as well as the left.  In a "movement" that purports to speak for slightly over half the population you are bound to have different views on strategy and priority.  There are political ideologies within as well as without.  And there is a political nature to it.  There must be on some level.  The idea that humans are created equal is at root a creature of political philosophy.

1. What is interesting is that, in the UK, we are taught pretty simply than the suffragettes (whose tactics included political disruption, property damage, and most famously, Emily Davidson becoming a martyr by running under the king's horse) were very successful. But if you study the movement academically, historians have much more mixed views on the success of the movement. From wiki-

"The overall effect of the suffragette militancy, however, was to set back the cause of women's suffrage. For women to gain the right to vote it was necessary to demonstrate that they had public opinion on their side, to build and consolidate a parliamentary majority in favour of women's suffrage and to persuade or pressure the government to introduce its own franchise reform. None of these objectives was achieved".

I'm not sure where I stand. I would say, and I don't think this is controversial, these tactics should only be used if there isn't a practical alternative. Women not being allowed the vote is clearly a result of sexism, men thinking women are inferior. The very sexism of these institutions meant women had little opportunity to have other means of pursuading men (and other women) of their innate value. I'm not sure aggressive acts pursuaded anyone, but it's hard to argue there was any other real option; the alternative was to be shut out and ignored. I hope everyone would agree that isn't the case today. But it's a really interesting issue, I'm glad you've bought it up, I would love to hear some other people's views on it.

2. I'd like to ask if you (or anyone else) belong to any official feminist groups? Do you think these groups are necessary (because I'm kind of assuming that they are)? In the UK, the Women's Equality Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Equality_Party was recently formed, is that something you'd support?

2 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Also - if you can, pleas stop equating genitals to gender or just...plain stop bringing up genitals at all

I will do, you're right, sorry about that. I assumed she was referring to my sex, but she could have been referring to my gender.

Hopefully all future arguments will be aimed at what I say, not my chromosomes or what is between my legs!

[Lily Valley]

On 12/13/2016 at 9:24 AM, Aoife said:

Going back to the medical studies issues   <snip>

FDA resource page from two weeks ago, plus a roadmap [though it's unfortunate that it's still a "Special Topic"!] : 

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/ucm131731.htm

http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/ucm478266.htm

Great post Aiofe, I just went down the rabbit hole yesterday when I should have been working   Thanks!

I just pulled up a bunch of disturbing papers about how badly medical research in general is reported.  Then the internet ate my freaking post.  I'm going to try to pull that back together.

There's some stuff in the links about putting together medical databases.  I think this is a fantastic idea.  There is an enormous potential for research if data were tracked on people of all different ages, races and cultures that could be studied against medical conditions.  Obviously privacy would need to be protected, but I find it shocking that this kind of thing isn't being done. 

On 12/15/2016 at 9:30 AM, Maithanet said:

Well, they're certainly marketed as feminist, although many feminists can see through that. 

This point ties in with Aiofe's post.  OTC medications and other products marketed for women are obscenely overpriced.  One particular example is probiotics.  Probiotics in the women's aisle are four times the cost of the ones you find in the digestive trouble and prostate health section.  There are different strains involved, but many of the digestive products are "wide spectrum".  If you can package two or four strains together and one of them covers women's health, why in the hell are the single strain in the women's aisle so much more expensive.  It's ridiculous.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

@mankytoes - No, I don't belong to any specific "feminist" groups.  I also don't identify with any political party.  I do belong to some women's career mentoring type groups.  I am perfectly happy with people organizing, though in general I am suspicious of organizations as I think they tend to calcify thought.  They are necessary evil (e.g., as idea incubators) but can stifle dialogue in my opinion.  But that's just me.

Separately, on whether the tactics were successful.  First, I'm always suspicious of wiki write ups, particularly on subjects that are even somewhat controversial due to their ability to be edited by someone with an agenda.  Bob Whitfield, the author of the quote, was writing about the franchise more generally, it appears, and I wasn't able to find out much about him via google except that he was cited in a book about AJP Taylor (who was a giant in the field of historical writing, for sure) for a paper written in 1979.  That somewhat suggests to me that the book doesn't necessarily represent the most current thoughts on the subject.  Second, they were certainly relatively successful in the United States.  The narrative is that Wilson lent his support to suffrage relatively directly as a result of protests in front of the White House that did lead to arrests, violence, etc.  You need both.  It's not enough to try to "convince" someone.  Some people need to be shown that there isn't another alternative more directly.....

[Seli]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not oppressing anyone, and I hate the term "mansplaining". I have as much right to an opinion as you do. If what I say is wrong, please point out why, but don't bring my genitals into it. That's regressive. You can behave as you wish, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm telling you my opinion on whether your current ways of communicating are working or not. If you feel differently, I'd like to know it what ways you feel they are effective....

Keep in mind our opinions don't mean much compared to opinions formed by lived experience. And that other people are often full well aware about our types of opinion, and agreeing or not, don't feel they have to validate ours.

 

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Also - if you can, pleas stop equating genitals to gender

Why?  Not everyone subscribes to the idea that gender/sex at birth aren't the same thing. Including MANY in the medical field, particularly the American College of Pediatricians, who have determined that the gender ideology you're trying to force upon Mankytoes is harmful to children.  A direct quote from their homepage - " Facts – not ideology – determine reality.".  You're free to believe what you wish, but trying to enforce your beliefs and ideas on another by trying to censor and limit his words, which is exactly what you just tried to do with the above quote, is BS, and in direct conflict with rights guaranteed under the US constitution. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

20 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Why?  Not everyone subscribes to the idea that gender/sex at birth aren't the same thing. Including MANY in the medical field, particularly the American College of Pediatricians, who have determined that the gender ideology you're trying to force upon Mankytoes is harmful to children.  A direct quote from their homepage - " Facts – not ideology – determine reality.".  You're free to believe what you wish, but trying to enforce your beliefs and ideas on another by trying to censor and limit his words, which is exactly what you just tried to do with the above quote, is BS, and in direct conflict with rights guaranteed under the US constitution. 

 

1.  I take extreme objection to your interpretation of the first amendment of the US Constitution. The liberty preserved by that amendment is that the government (in the form of Congress, and as extended by the 14th amendment, the states) may not restrict speech.  Text quoted below.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For instance, Ran is the King of this Board, and if he makes the word "spoon" a bannable offense tomorrow, so be it.  He can do that.  First amendment wouldn't do diddly squat.

2.  The US constitution does not technically apply to UK citizens living in the UK.  We fought a war about that.  We won once, and fought the second time to a Napoleon-influenced useless draw.  But, as you may know, libel and slander law in the UK is much more restrictive of speech than it is in the US because, well, the first amendment doesn't apply there.  So, basically, your last sentence is overblown nonsense.  

3.  The American College of Pediatricians is a socially conservative activist group and is NOT the American Academy of Pediatrics, just in case anyone is confused.

4.  This thread isn't about gender identity.  It is about feminism.  It isn't even about the need for feminism.  Just feminism.  Please read the first post in the page, and come back thereafter.

5.  Mankytoes is doing just fine without your "help" and in my view is constructively participating, for the record.

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@mankytoes - No, I don't belong to any specific "feminist" groups.  I also don't identify with any political party.  I do belong to some women's career mentoring type groups.  I am perfectly happy with people organizing, though in general I am suspicious of organizations as I think they tend to calcify thought.  They are necessary evil (e.g., as idea incubators) but can stifle dialogue in my opinion.  But that's just me.

Separately, on whether the tactics were successful.  First, I'm always suspicious of wiki write ups, particularly on subjects that are even somewhat controversial due to their ability to be edited by someone with an agenda.  Bob Whitfield, the author of the quote, was writing about the franchise more generally, it appears, and I wasn't able to find out much about him via google except that he was cited in a book about AJP Taylor (who was a giant in the field of historical writing, for sure) for a paper written in 1979.  That somewhat suggests to me that the book doesn't necessarily represent the most current thoughts on the subject.  Second, they were certainly relatively successful in the United States.  The narrative is that Wilson lent his support to suffrage relatively directly as a result of protests in front of the White House that did lead to arrests, violence, etc.  You need both.  It's not enough to try to "convince" someone.  Some people need to be shown that there isn't another alternative more directly.....

I would say (without claiming any great evidence) that women's career mentoring groups are probably more effective for achieving feminist goals than feminist groups themselves. I mean you could consider that a feminist group, right?

To be clear, that was just the example I found, this is something I've read about a few times, there was an article in The Times saying the real heroes, in terms of actual political effect, of women's suffrage were the moderates who campaigned legally, but have been largely forgotten. I don't know much about women's suffrage outside the UK so I can't really comment, unfortunately. I don't think you need radical action in the present day UK or USA on these issues, but that's purely subjective, dependent on how much real access to real power you think women and feminists have. Obviously, I think they have more than other people here.

54 minutes ago, Seli said:

Keep in mind our opinions don't mean much compared to opinions formed by lived experience. And that other people are often full well aware about our types of opinion, and agreeing or not, don't feel they have to validate ours.

 

That's true, but you've got to look at the issue. If I'm saying "period aren't a big deal", you could consider than "mansplaining" (without trying to get into gender issues again) because I've never had a period. Cat calling, similar. I was talking about pretty broad stuff, and getting told, basically, "shut your mouth because of your gender". To me, that is absolute blatent sexism.

40 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Why?  Not everyone subscribes to the idea that gender/sex at birth aren't the same thing. Including MANY in the medical field, particularly the American College of Pediatricians, who have determined that the gender ideology you're trying to force upon Mankytoes is harmful to children.  A direct quote from their homepage - " Facts – not ideology – determine reality.".  You're free to believe what you wish, but trying to enforce your beliefs and ideas on another by trying to censor and limit his words, which is exactly what you just tried to do with the above quote, is BS, and in direct conflict with rights guaranteed under the US constitution. 

To be clear, having researched this, the very official sounding "American College of Pediatricians" are a very small, politial fringe group- http://www.snopes.com/americas-pediatricians-gender-kids/

I don't know if you're aware of that, or if you don't realise the name is misleading, but you should make sure this is clear to people, because the implication, intentional or not, is that you're talking about the main American group of pediatricians.

There are many, more extreme examples of this, possibly most infamously the very dry and academic Institute for Historical Review, which is mainly concerned with Holocaust denial.

It's ironic that they say "facts- not ideology- determine reality", because they're clearly pushing a certain ideology, and in quite a dishonest way. They're clearly pushing an anti-LGBT ideology, would not allow any qualified pediatrician to join if they didn't promote their line of thinking, and even been classified as a hate group- https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/13/meet-anti-lgbt-hate-group-filed-amicus-brief-alabama-supreme-court 

I appreciate your concern for my liberty, but that was actually a polite request. This is an issue I am already familiar with, and I hope you are too, and from sources which are a bit more reputable than this one!

Edit- in case, you, or anyone else, is wondering why they're considered a hate group, here's a lovely article I found by them- http://www.acpeds.org/p-for-pedophile "Driving in this morning I began to wonder. Why isn’t the movement of LGBT not the PLGBT movement: “P” for pedophile?... When I look at sex education in schools, I see Alfred C. Kinsey, and his colleagues, and I see pansexuality and an embracing of pedophilia, along with bestiality."

[Theda Baratheon]

33 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Why?  Not everyone subscribes to the idea that gender/sex at birth aren't the same thing. Including MANY in the medical field, particularly the American College of Pediatricians, who have determined that the gender ideology you're trying to force upon Mankytoes is harmful to children.  A direct quote from their homepage - " Facts – not ideology – determine reality.".  You're free to believe what you wish, but trying to enforce your beliefs and ideas on another by trying to censor and limit his words, which is exactly what you just tried to do with the above quote, is BS, and in direct conflict with rights guaranteed under the US constitution. 

No - I asked mankytoes  (and any othere using the thread) who seems like a nice enough person (who totally accepted what I said) to not equate gender and genitals. I asked so politely. I shall be a little less polite now though. Me and mankytoes are from the UK and whilst I don't pretend to speak for him, I don't give a flying fuck about the US constitution.  But even if I did your words would not make sense.

So let's all be polite people and not bring up genitals and I don't care about any type of School who disregards the identity of others. 

I think mankytoes is a grown man, he can speak for himself and is welcome in this thread. 

[Theda Baratheon]

2 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I would say (without claiming any great evidence) that women's career mentoring groups are probably more effective for achieving feminist goals than feminist groups themselves. I mean you could consider that a feminist group, right?

To be clear, that was just the example I found, this is something I've read about a few times, there was an article in The Times saying the real heroes, in terms of actual political effect, of women's suffrage were the moderates who campaigned legally, but have been largely forgotten. I don't know much about women's suffrage outside the UK so I can't really comment, unfortunately. I don't think you need radical action in the present day UK or USA on these issues, but that's purely subjective, dependent on how much real access to real power you think women and feminists have. Obviously, I think they have more than other people here.

That's true, but you've got to look at the issue. If I'm saying "period aren't a big deal", you could consider than "mansplaining" (without trying to get into gender issues again) because I've never had a period. Cat calling, similar. I was talking about pretty broad stuff, and getting told, basically, "shut your mouth because of your gender". To me, that is absolute blatent sexism.

To be clear, having researched this, the very official sounding "American College of Pediatricians" are a very small, politial fringe group- http://www.snopes.com/americas-pediatricians-gender-kids/

I don't know if you're aware of that, or if you don't realise the name is misleading, but you should make sure this is clear to people, because the implication, intentional or not, is that you're talking about the main American group of pediatricians.

There are many, more extreme examples of this, possibly most infamously the very dry and academic Institute for Historical Review, which is mainly concerned with Holocaust denial.

It's ironic that they say "facts- not ideology- determine reality", because they're clearly pushing a certain ideology, and in quite a dishonest way. They're clearly pushing an anti-LGBT ideology, would not allow any qualified pediatrician to join if they didn't promote their line of thinking, and even been classified as a hate group- https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/13/meet-anti-lgbt-hate-group-filed-amicus-brief-alabama-supreme-court

I appreciate your concern for my liberty, but that was actually a polite request. This is an issue I am already familiar with, and I hope you are too, and from sources which are a bit more reputable than this one!

Thanks for sharing, mate.People should be careful with their sources, especially when quoting from a hate group.