viewtopic.php?p=4983#p4983 and viewtopic.php?p=4994#p4994 where I say:
Each time you 'investigate' someone, apparently you have more 'evidence'. However, the evidence is never conclusive - it is really just a possibility and anyone can raise it! And it is possible that anyone you don't know intimately could be an invert - ie there can seem to be a huge amount of evidence out there!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies.
With the transvestigations, all you have is lots and lots of hypotheses (people being scrutinised). This can seem like there is also a lot of evidence, but, in fact, very few (if any) of the hypotheses are proven. What you really have is a lot of unverified claims, and you can add more whenever you like - eg Tyson. For a presenter of this info (eg Mr E who says he taught critical thinking!), it's the gift that keeps on giving - you can just say whatever and the claim stands. It is far more akin to gossip or smears, than the scientific method (the method is valid, even if 'the science' isn't).
Obviously this is a terrible methodology. Mr E, who reminds us in his chats that he taught critical thinking at university, will surely be aware of how bad a methodology this is! Evidence-free or evidence-lite smears are left to stand and are added to the 'body of evidence' we already have! And how many terabytes of 'evidence' there are! Its very reminiscent of the climate change proofs - lots of hot air!
Having said all that, I am nevertheless open to the idea that trans people, the ideology, etc are being heavily promoted to people. And I think I found an excellent example, I am coming at this from a MSM media deconstruction perspective.
Here is the article: https://www.bbc.com/sport/63066765
And here are some quotes from the article:
Ie, you've never heard of her, but should have..It was March 1976 and the host was giving a speech about the latest inductee. You probably won't know her name.
Ora Washington was a champion, a star of two sports, but prejudice stopped her competing for the biggest prizes of the day. Her sporting career spanned three decades of change in her native United States, but change didn't come quickly enough.
SJW talking points.Washington's is a powerful and important story. She was one of the most extraordinary Black female athletes of the 20th century. Tennis great Arthur Ashe described her as "the first Black female to dominate a sport".
There are still lots of things we can't know about Washington, but we do know she received homophobic abuse, and that racism and white supremacy denied her both the opportunity and recognition she deserved.
Washington's life threw up obstacles all along the way. And she took on the same types of injustice that many are still fighting today.
Confusing! Washington won "from 1929 to 1935" and yet "Helen Wills, who won her seventh national title in 1931"? Whatevs.Also in 1925, the same year as her victory over Channels, Washington won her first tennis ATA doubles title. She went on to win that title every year up to 1936. In the singles game she would win the women's ATA trophy from 1929 to 1935. Seven years as champion at the top.
Washington was a headliner who dominated Black sports media coverage, but this was still pre-war America. In contrast to another serial champion of this time - the white player Helen Wills, who won her seventh national title in 1931 - Washington's success was allowed to exist only in isolation.
Right - but I haven't heard of Helen Wills either!!There would be no mainstream superstardom, no merchandising or endorsement deals from international sportswear brands. The competitions she won didn't lead to global fame or untold riches.
A basketball player too, famous for her long shots.Around the time of Washington's big tennis breakthrough in 1925, her name was also beginning to appear on lists of Black women's basketball teams as well.
...
She became a star as the team steadily rose. Reports of the day speak of outrageous long shots, of record scores that carried her side to victory. On 9 April 1931, the Hornets claimed the National Girls Basketball Title, beating Rankin Femmes, a team from near Pittsburgh, in the final.
Some chit chat about the private life... raising the tranny spectre..In 1932, Washington was recruited as captain of the Tribunes. The Tribune newspaper celebrated her exploits, holding her up as the star of a team that won 11 consecutive championships.
But despite this, at a time when sporting celebrities had already begun to emerge, there was never any coverage of her private life. Such focus did fall on other female athletes of the day - but only in a particular way. Washington did not fit that template.
...
Whether Washington privately saw herself as more masculine or feminine, or as heterosexual or homosexual or anything else, is impossible to know from this distance. But some former members of the Bennett College team - against whom Washington played - shared memories of her when interviewed in the early 2000s by Rita Liberti, another contributor to the podcast.
From what they said, Washington was seen as different - as less feminine than the other players.
When the BBC air rumours, that is not a smear, of course.Years later he hinted to historian Pamela Grundy that his aunt was in a relationship with a woman. As far as we know, Washington never came out publicly, but we believe her sexuality is an important part of her story - and we'll hear from another of her relatives shortly.
"a baritone voice", eh? Plus more sjw fodder."You know, she seemed looming large, larger than life. She was tall and slim, she had a baritone voice and beautiful eyes. And when she looked at you, you saw sincerity in her eyes when she spoke.
"My aunt Ora was homosexual, we had no problem with her sexuality… [but] she was reclusive because of that, so I would imagine those who knew of her sexuality suppressed her accomplishments when she was at her best. They refused [to], even the Black community, let alone the white community because of racism back then.
So - people of the time were racist, sexist, homophobic.... they would hate trannies too, right?
And there it is!! A "hidden figure story".This is nothing short of a hidden figure story.
It is also worth looking at the photos on the page - the person has a very male appearance.
To me, the article is an example of how history is falsified - it is re-written in the present, for the present. History is expedient and can be whatever it needs to be.
The MSM (here the BBC) present us with characters (eg 'Washington') that seem either entirely fake, or embellished. Certainly you have never heard of them (just as you have never heard of any of other female tennis or basketball players from the 1940s) but you need to hear about them now! Their narratives provide a historical context to a current narrative.
And in some ways, Mr E et al are doing the same as the MSM articles (eg above) but from the conspiracy angle. By discussing this stuff from the conspiracy sidelines, throwing out plausible seeming smears (but no hard evidence as very little can be found) and throwing in religion and 'occult rune deciphering', etc, ensures that they can easily be dismissed, whilst capturing the imagination.
I'm sure some might think I'm doing the same.
But I'm not. In deconstructing and exposing 2 low evidence approaches that support a narrative, what I think I'm doing is showing how this is a narrative I/we are meant to take seriously. It is meant to become a black hole that I/we are meant to gravitate around.
My view is: take a look, but until there is some real evidence, ignore, deconstruct. There is not much reasoning or truth to be found here, in either the MSM or conspiracy approach.