Traits such as achievement and competitiveness are described as the “ideology” of “traditional masculinity” by the APA.
Leftist psychologists are using these guidelines to continue their attacks on traditionally male characteristics and promote their unscientific gender identity cult.
According to Kay, who writes for the Canadian National Post: “Gender fluidity is a very Church-like dogma in that it is based entirely on faith. Consider the other grounds for discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act: ‘race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered’.
“Every other ground for discrimination is certifiable with objective evidence. Only gender identity is based entirely in subjective feeling.”
Kay says leftists are “obsessed with people’s ‘feelings’. She says it should be impossible to win an argument based on feelings. “But nowadays, they rarely lose.”
In elevating feelings as the arbiter of a human right, individual comfort trumps individual rights. Which makes it not only a bad law, but a dangerous one, she says. Kay has called gender identity programmes “junk science”.
In an academic paper from 2011, John Furedy, a retired professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, correlated totalitarian regimes with institutions and governments that privilege individual comfort over individual rights.
Furedy pointed out: “The most striking feature of totalitarian societies is that the comfort criterion takes precedence over considerations of truth in general and fairness to individuals in particular.”
The researcher even coined a phrase for this tendency: “velvet totalitarianism” and described five common characteristics of any form of totalitarianism, velvet or otherwise:
i) The “presence of uninterpretable laws”, where there is no objective metric for defining an alleged offence;
ii) The presence and power of pseudo experts, such as equity officers in universities, who exercise control over things like curriculum content or faculty hiring, without valid academic credentials;
iii) “Status-defined ethics” that allows for persecution of those without victim status, by those with it;
iv) A fear of engaging in public discussion of controversial issues;
v) Demonization of those perceived as political or ideological dissidents.
In the US, already 62 percent of students who identify as left-leaning agree that silencing speech through protest is acceptable; and one in five college students believe it is acceptable to use violence to stop speech with which they disagree.