Swedish woman systematically destroys the “gender identity” lie

In the first video, Hanna Lindholm asks questions of students on a Swedish university campus and in so doing, exposes the emptiness of “gender identity.” The second video is an interesting interview with Lindholm on a Swedish radio program. English subtitles in both videos.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Swedish woman systematically destroys the “gender identity” lie

  1. Now watching.

    Re video itself: I think there was some sort of selection. And I see it in something other than the gender identity question.

    I mean, how come they are all saying one has to “look a certain way” to be Japanese, when this is SWEDEN? Sweden, somewhat notorious for its ethnic diversity in recent decades?

    They have to know that there are many Swedish people – born in Sweden, recognized as Swedish – who look like Middle Easterners or Africans. So they just had to think “there can be Japanese people who don’t look traditionally Japanese, too”. And their claims about the meaning of “Japanese” dovetails much too neatly into Swedish Democrat party ideology.

    Or else they are all anime fans who know a lot about Japan, which does happen to have a very tight immigration policy. But this is improbable. And in any event, a far easier question, “do you speak and write Japanese?”, was somehow never asked.

    So yes, I think there was a selection. Those better educated can crack her questions like nuts – they are really pretty easy – and I suspect there were quite a few of those but she just discarded that footage.

    Re interview: the words “Swedish democrat” are pronounced explicitly at the very start, proving my point. Not the first time you go reposting the far right, though, so perhaps you think they are going to bring you liberation from gender? If there is anything at all properly called a “delusion”, it’s the idea that trans people are somehow more important in upholding restrictive gender norms than the friggin’ far right.

    The interviewer decided to be provocative in a classical way and brought a far leftist to counter the far rightist. That’s a bit of a risky proposition seeing the far left and far right sometimes join at the “other end of the circle”, as evidenced by the recent Morning Star publications. But in this case, the Communist makes a great opponent.

    She catches on to the main message at once – that “gender AND NATIONALITY is something biological”. That nationality thing is really the pinnacle of the Swedish Democrat message! Cederin, the Commie, knows this stuff, she’s in this for years.

    Cederin is an activist, not a philosopher, and it shows. Instead of accepting the discussion on matters of principle, she pushes towards “what kind of society do we want”.

    And this works! In the very next answer, Lindholm starts contradicting herself. She now says it “has nothing to do with HBQT persons” while just a few short minutes earlier she said “the whole HBQT debate has become very diffuse”. Either she is lost in the “Is it ir is it not LGBT” (Swedish HBQT), or she is trying to pull the old right-wing trick of “good quiet LGBT people, evil LGBT activists” withotu even admitting to it.

    Yay, the Red is even philosopher enough! “What is reality” was exactly the right question. She does not, however, labour the point further (as I would). Instead she, the practical activist, asks “and what is your problem with that” – and bingo! in another minute gets Lindholm to say “society must have morals and rules”. And then shortly, “a society with rules adopted [adapted?] to our biological principles”.

    Thus, we have Lindhold out as a defender of gender norms as derived from “biological principles”. Because you really need to believe in that to see gender identity as a problem. And then the interviewer cuts them off.

    Hat off to Hanna Cederin! She did it much better than I could think of. I’d have gone into deconstruction of “man” and “woman” and what these words are supposed to mean in society and why, while she kept it practical – and in a very short time got Hanna Lindholm to admit what she truly believes. This is one of the rare moments I’m ashamed that I’m an anti-Communist.

    Like

    1. No.

      “I mean, how come they are all saying one has to “look a certain way” to be Japanese, when this is SWEDEN? Sweden, somewhat notorious for its ethnic diversity in recent decades?”

      Sweden was once ethnically homogeneous. There is such as a thing as ethnic Swede. Look at the Saami people.

      “They have to know that there are many Swedish people – born in Sweden, recognized as Swedish – who look like Middle Easterners or Africans.” – They are Swedish by nationality, not by ethnicity. They act and believe in the cultures of their original homelands. So in that case they are not ethnic Swedes. Try again.

      “Or else they are all anime fans who know a lot about Japan, which does happen to have a very tight immigration policy. But this is improbable. And in any event, a far easier question, “do you speak and write Japanese?”, was somehow never asked.” – Speaking Japanese does not make one an ethnic Japanese. Ethnicity and race exists, you know.

      “Those better educated can crack her questions like nuts – they are really pretty easy – and I suspect there were quite a few of those but she just discarded that footage.” – By better educated, do you mean those who buy into the gender identity nonsense? Her questions stumped many of them. If race and gender are social constructs, why can’t a white woman be a six foot tall Asian man? What’s stopping her?

      “the words “Swedish democrat” are pronounced explicitly at the very start, proving my point. Not the first time you go reposting the far right, though, so perhaps you think they are going to bring you liberation from gender?” – There is no such thing as liberation from ‘gender’. Gender is biological. And there is nothing wrong with the far-right in Sweden. Sweden is entirely tolerant and progressive in terms of feminism and transgenderism. You can only pick which one you want. Women’s rights or transgender rights. Also, Sweden has a problem with those other ‘Swedes’, and have caused the rape rates to skyrocket. If you’re a feminist and hate rape, I expect you to be quite vocal about it. I guess not.

      “If there is anything at all properly called a “delusion”, it’s the idea that trans people are somehow more important in upholding restrictive gender norms than the friggin’ far right.” – That’s true. So what’s the big deal?

      The interviewer decided to be provocative in a classical way and brought a far leftist to counter the far rightist. That’s a bit of a risky proposition seeing the far left and far right sometimes join at the “other end of the circle”, as evidenced by the recent Morning Star publications.

      “But in this case, the Communist makes a great opponent.” – No, she doesn’t.

      “She catches on to the main message at once – that “gender AND NATIONALITY is something biological”. That nationality thing is really the pinnacle of the Swedish Democrat message! Cederin, the Commie, knows this stuff, she’s in this for years.” – Those things happen to be true. You can’t deny it. Ask a migrant from Afghanistan if he feels he is Afghani. He will tell you he is. They don’t believe this gender nonsense.

      “Cederin is an activist, not a philosopher, and it shows. Instead of accepting the discussion on matters of principle, she pushes towards “what kind of society do we want”. – That’s called diverting the argument or a Red Herring. Better yet, it’s a strawman because she can’t answer the question directly.

      “And this works! In the very next answer, Lindholm starts contradicting herself. She now says it “has nothing to do with HBQT persons” while just a few short minutes earlier she said “the whole HBQT debate has become very diffuse”. Either she is lost in the “Is it ir is it not LGBT” (Swedish HBQT), or she is trying to pull the old right-wing trick of “good quiet LGBT people, evil LGBT activists” withotu even admitting to it.”

      You need to come to a conclusion yourself: whether the ‘T’ in LGBT is in contradiction to the other members of the sexual minority or they are all in it for the same goal. They are not. Lindholm is right. The LGBT debate is very diffused. The right-wing wants a return to traditional values. The Communist doesn’t seem to realize that the LGBT cannot reproduce on their own, and society is made by the children you have.

      ““What is reality” was exactly the right question. She does not, however, labour the point further (as I would). Instead she, the practical activist, asks “and what is your problem with that” – and bingo! in another minute gets Lindholm to say “society must have morals and rules”. And then shortly, “a society with rules adopted [adapted?] to our biological principles”.

      That so happens to be reality. Reality is reality – it’s not a philosophy and you can tell me that I can’t flap my wings and fly, though I want to.

      “Thus, we have Lindhold out as a defender of gender norms as derived from “biological principles”. Because you really need to believe in that to see gender identity as a problem. And then the interviewer cuts them off.”

      Er, yes? Either gender exists or transgenders don’t. You can only pick one.

      “Hat off to Hanna Cederin! She did it much better than I could think of. I’d have gone into deconstruction of “man” and “woman” and what these words are supposed to mean in society and why, while she kept it practical – and in a very short time got Hanna Lindholm to admit what she truly believes. This is one of the rare moments I’m ashamed that I’m an anti-Communist.”

      You sound like a Communist to me. What is there to deconstruct ‘man’ and ‘woman’, and what it means in society? Unless you want to be a transgender and say that biology DOES NOT matter and that womanhood and manhood are entirely made-up concepts. You can only pick one. She was simply playing into the ‘gender is a social construct’ lie, as you do. In fact, you’re not even sure of what you want to say because it’s one thing and then another.

      Reality is reality. You cannot deny it. If you do, you are delusional.

      Like

      1. “Race exists” and “reality is reality” in the same comment? You’re either another far rightist, or just WAY dated. “Race” is a nineteenth century false scientific invention, designed specifically for oppression; there is no other meaning to “race”. And it’s not even a question. Race is made by racists and it only means what racists want it to mean (for example, Ashkenazi Jews are “white” or “not white” depending on which racist you ask).

        Ethnic origin does exist, but in Europe, someone not with the Far Right will use “ethnically” to denote it.

        Subsequent paragraphs seem to prove that you are a far rightist and, yes, you write “gender is biological”. In which case my comment was not really addressed to you. I would not have phrased it like that if writing to a rightist. It was directed towards radical feminists who do believe in “gender abolition” – their words, not mine.

        “You can only pick which one you want. Women’s rights or transgender rights.” actually under the far right you have neither. What you get is exactly what she said, a society based on an alleged “biological order”, and it means reproduction and domesticity for women.

        You actually get right to it: “The right-wing wants a return to traditional values. The Communist doesn’t seem to realize that the LGBT cannot reproduce on their own, and society is made by the children you have.” Well, quelle surprise, this approach is incompatible with women’s rights, not just trans rights.

        “You sound like a Communist to me. What is there to deconstruct ‘man’ and ‘woman’, and what it means in society?” Actually I come from Russia originally (yes I am one of the immigrants in the EU). And I am used to Communism being primarily collectivism, subordinating individuals to the Needs of Society. “The common over the individual” was the motto I used to hear in the USSR. Just like your position, actually.

        To Awesome Cat: I *told* you these were your new friends. Your version of “reality” is strongly tied to the version expressed in Shooter’s comment. Is this really what you want? Well if you do want to go that way, it’s not for me to prevent you becoming the next star of Fox News. But I hope this at least gives you a pause. Your version of feminism directly brings you to Shooter’s view and “traditional values” (and Lindholm really believes the same thing).

        Like

      1. If race is just a social construct how is it that you take a DNA sample from a White person and a Black person send them to a DNA lab and they can tell the difference without ever having met the donors? Of course the same thing goes for men and women even is one of them is “trans”.

        Like

Comments are closed.