Humans do not have "gender." Only words have gender because it's a linguistics term.
This whole thing is a fraud. All of it. There's no such thing as "transgender" athletes. They're men who get off on abusing women. It's the oldest truth in the book. Male stupidity distilled into its purest form.
If women didn’t wear dresses and make up and do all that stuff that seems to make us women, and society was completely different. What would then make the men in dresses and make up women? Seen as they think that it is those things that make you a woman 🤔. Brings us back to that question. “What is a woman?” #adulthumanfemale!
Exactly. It literally boils down to clothes--that's all this is. Ask of these idiots to define what they mean by "gender" and it comes down to clothing, hair and makeup.
That's because they're men who hate women, and in their minds we're a costume to be consumed at will by them. Nothing more.
Lucy, one of the things I love the most about your articles is your eye on historic events. Some people point at a future that follows a formula that is too reminiscent of past horrors. Anyone who cares about the wellbeing of babies and their mothers, anyone who cares enough to do their own research - like you do- is alarmed. Thank you for speaking up.
A couple of people were found guilty, but the large majority of Nazis had little consequences simply because there were too many. As the German chancellor charmingly put it "You don't pour away dirty water if you don't have clean one."
"We live in a time where intelligent people are silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended" - that is a really apt quote but I don't think the army of gender-enablers are stupid at all. The point they fall down is their allegiance to ideology/which political team they belong on exceeds their allegiance to truth and the process of truth (evidence based reasoning). Once locked into the wrong choice they then display all the classic signs of cognitive dissonance because to admit you were wrong is too humiliating to intelligent people. The smarter you are the harder the psychological cost of admitting error - especially an egregious one. They are not being kind to the trans/whatever sufferers (real of purported), they are being kind to THEMSELVES, to save face.
In other words it is not altruism/kindness that drives them but the opposite: selfish instinct to preserve their ego. True altruism would require sacrificing their own comfortable place on the right side of history and joining the GC activists who are actually trying to save people.
"The entire trans edifice is built on the foundation of sand that is gender ideology. This posits that we can choose our sex at will (and even without a single medical consultation or “treatment”) our sex is what we declare it to be, regardless of our embodied reality."
I agree that's how it seems to be, but I don't think that's how trans activists would frame it. Their claim, as I understand it, is not that you can choose your sex, but that your sex is what you feel it to be. You can't choose it, you just know it.
I agree that they can frame it like this, but unfortunately for them, this belief system only works if they can persuade everyone else to participate in their delusional fantasy. Because eons of evolution have wired women's brains to identify men from an entire panoply of physical clues (in addition to the obvious penis) needed to keep ourselves safe and conversely most of us can identify women, even if they present with a beard. Our genetic goal is reproduction, not deception, this only works with one binary combination, and we are hard wired to understand this, even if we consciously choose to not participate.
Complete agreement. We evolved to distinguish sex because it's evolutionarily necessary. We can pretend not to notice, out of politeness or social pressure, but we can't not notice. We're just not structured that way. Modern progressive gender ideology is in as much denial of evolution as Biblical literalism ever was. In philosophical terms, it's the utter rejection of empiricism in favor of a kind of radical rationalism. However, I do cherish a slender hope of persuading people who disagree with me. Maybe that's naïve, but my only alternative is despair. That being my hope, I try to formulate the genderists' claims as they would formulate them. Otherwise it's that much easier for them to dismiss me. They don't tend to claim you can choose your gender or sex, at least not to my observation. They do, in fact, tend to claim the opposite. You can't change your "gender," you're just born that way. Sometimes your birth sex doesn't align with how you were "gendered at birth." I realize their position lacks even internal consistency. The same people who demand you to "learn the difference between gender and sex" will then turn around and conflate the terms on a dime. (e.g.: changing a transwoman's driver's license to read "F"). I know it's frustrating. But I take it as a sign of bad faith if my opponent in an argument refuses to summarize my position as I would. To be fair and consistent, I must reciprocate.
I accept your position totally and can see your point. My problem is that after working with psychiatrically disturbed people (not in the trans community) I am more concerned about putting guard rails in place against any harmful behaviors they create for the rest of us, than I am in persuading them that they are unmoored from reality. I have written at length in several other posts about the end point of us "being kind" and accepting their self-perception as something we are obligated to participate in. It's not like this is some sort of universal thing either. Those that claim an ethnic or race identity at odds with reality are not allowed to claim this on the basis that they "know" they were born for example as a Black person when their heritage is all from white Europeans. And a 30-year-old can't claim to be "only 15" so they can change which division of a sporting competition to compete in.
Plus, while it may be considered acceptable to play pretend for an individual, this falls apart once they leave home and start interacting with others. I find it both puzzling and infuriating that just at the point when medical science is waking up to the reality that women are not just smaller, defective men, we are expected to accept that sex is a spectrum, so bodies don't matter and that only what we feel and believe is to be taken into consideration.
If I saw a man wearing an obvious toupee, I wouldn't mock or belittle him. I wouldn't go out of my way to inform him he wasn't fooling anyone. I accept it as his own tragicomic burden to bear, and wish him well towards coming to grips with reality. Same as when I see a male trying to pass as a woman. He's almost certainly psychologically disturbed. Why make his life more difficult than it already must be by puncturing his self-delusion? It might even be dangerous, given that people are sometimes violent if their delusions are challenged. The safer and, yes, kinder option seems to be to let it go. I don't look at that so much as participating in the ruse as strategic neutrality.
Granted, there are also convincing hairpieces, and males who can more successfully pass for the opposite sex (at least to me; women, for what seem like obvious reasons, are said to be better on average at detecting the difference). My view has long been, if that's what you want, and you can get away with it, good for you. At any rate, it's not for me to set limits on what you can wear, or how you can cosmetically or surgically alter your own body. But if you don't want me to notice, the onus is on you to convince me, not on me to be convinced.
I take your point that according to contemporary progressive theology, only sexual identities, not racial or generational, seem to be up for grabs. The reason seems to be a belief that we all have an organic "gender identity" but not a racial, generational, or indeed apparently any other kind of identity. In addition to being a sex, we have a feeling about which sex we are; these are related, but distinct, and sometimes don't correlate in a given individual. i.e. one who is "trans." "Gender identity" seems to be progressive theology's substitute for the immoral soul.
Once again, we are actually in agreement with each other. I suspect we both probably are happy to go along with what JK Rowling said, “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”
If you want to cover your bald patch with a hairpiece (or use a padded bra to make your breasts look bigger), well you do you because you are not hurting anyone. But if you are Lia Thomas walking around the women's changing rooms with your erect penis on display (after having publicly stated that you still are attracted to women), in front of women who perhaps have been raped by someone else's erect penis, then just your very presence may well be causing harm, and this is not allowed in my personal rule book. Not to mention that he is also cheating in sports and removing opportunities for women to win.
And while I do feel sorry for anyone living in a delusional state, my pity for them does not extend towards allowing them to expect everyone else to accommodate to their beliefs. This is not helpful in the end because it is supporting a state that is unachievable, no matter how many surgeries or medications are applied.
These are just men--there's one kind.
Humans do not have "gender." Only words have gender because it's a linguistics term.
This whole thing is a fraud. All of it. There's no such thing as "transgender" athletes. They're men who get off on abusing women. It's the oldest truth in the book. Male stupidity distilled into its purest form.
Well said! 👊🏾
Hey thanks!
If women didn’t wear dresses and make up and do all that stuff that seems to make us women, and society was completely different. What would then make the men in dresses and make up women? Seen as they think that it is those things that make you a woman 🤔. Brings us back to that question. “What is a woman?” #adulthumanfemale!
Exactly. It literally boils down to clothes--that's all this is. Ask of these idiots to define what they mean by "gender" and it comes down to clothing, hair and makeup.
That's because they're men who hate women, and in their minds we're a costume to be consumed at will by them. Nothing more.
Exactly. And did women suddenly all become men when we started wearing trousers? If so, I’ve been a man for a very long time.
Lucy, one of the things I love the most about your articles is your eye on historic events. Some people point at a future that follows a formula that is too reminiscent of past horrors. Anyone who cares about the wellbeing of babies and their mothers, anyone who cares enough to do their own research - like you do- is alarmed. Thank you for speaking up.
A couple of people were found guilty, but the large majority of Nazis had little consequences simply because there were too many. As the German chancellor charmingly put it "You don't pour away dirty water if you don't have clean one."
There will be no reckoning.
"We live in a time where intelligent people are silenced so that stupid people won’t be offended" - that is a really apt quote but I don't think the army of gender-enablers are stupid at all. The point they fall down is their allegiance to ideology/which political team they belong on exceeds their allegiance to truth and the process of truth (evidence based reasoning). Once locked into the wrong choice they then display all the classic signs of cognitive dissonance because to admit you were wrong is too humiliating to intelligent people. The smarter you are the harder the psychological cost of admitting error - especially an egregious one. They are not being kind to the trans/whatever sufferers (real of purported), they are being kind to THEMSELVES, to save face.
In other words it is not altruism/kindness that drives them but the opposite: selfish instinct to preserve their ego. True altruism would require sacrificing their own comfortable place on the right side of history and joining the GC activists who are actually trying to save people.
"The entire trans edifice is built on the foundation of sand that is gender ideology. This posits that we can choose our sex at will (and even without a single medical consultation or “treatment”) our sex is what we declare it to be, regardless of our embodied reality."
I agree that's how it seems to be, but I don't think that's how trans activists would frame it. Their claim, as I understand it, is not that you can choose your sex, but that your sex is what you feel it to be. You can't choose it, you just know it.
I agree that they can frame it like this, but unfortunately for them, this belief system only works if they can persuade everyone else to participate in their delusional fantasy. Because eons of evolution have wired women's brains to identify men from an entire panoply of physical clues (in addition to the obvious penis) needed to keep ourselves safe and conversely most of us can identify women, even if they present with a beard. Our genetic goal is reproduction, not deception, this only works with one binary combination, and we are hard wired to understand this, even if we consciously choose to not participate.
Complete agreement. We evolved to distinguish sex because it's evolutionarily necessary. We can pretend not to notice, out of politeness or social pressure, but we can't not notice. We're just not structured that way. Modern progressive gender ideology is in as much denial of evolution as Biblical literalism ever was. In philosophical terms, it's the utter rejection of empiricism in favor of a kind of radical rationalism. However, I do cherish a slender hope of persuading people who disagree with me. Maybe that's naïve, but my only alternative is despair. That being my hope, I try to formulate the genderists' claims as they would formulate them. Otherwise it's that much easier for them to dismiss me. They don't tend to claim you can choose your gender or sex, at least not to my observation. They do, in fact, tend to claim the opposite. You can't change your "gender," you're just born that way. Sometimes your birth sex doesn't align with how you were "gendered at birth." I realize their position lacks even internal consistency. The same people who demand you to "learn the difference between gender and sex" will then turn around and conflate the terms on a dime. (e.g.: changing a transwoman's driver's license to read "F"). I know it's frustrating. But I take it as a sign of bad faith if my opponent in an argument refuses to summarize my position as I would. To be fair and consistent, I must reciprocate.
I accept your position totally and can see your point. My problem is that after working with psychiatrically disturbed people (not in the trans community) I am more concerned about putting guard rails in place against any harmful behaviors they create for the rest of us, than I am in persuading them that they are unmoored from reality. I have written at length in several other posts about the end point of us "being kind" and accepting their self-perception as something we are obligated to participate in. It's not like this is some sort of universal thing either. Those that claim an ethnic or race identity at odds with reality are not allowed to claim this on the basis that they "know" they were born for example as a Black person when their heritage is all from white Europeans. And a 30-year-old can't claim to be "only 15" so they can change which division of a sporting competition to compete in.
Plus, while it may be considered acceptable to play pretend for an individual, this falls apart once they leave home and start interacting with others. I find it both puzzling and infuriating that just at the point when medical science is waking up to the reality that women are not just smaller, defective men, we are expected to accept that sex is a spectrum, so bodies don't matter and that only what we feel and believe is to be taken into consideration.
If I saw a man wearing an obvious toupee, I wouldn't mock or belittle him. I wouldn't go out of my way to inform him he wasn't fooling anyone. I accept it as his own tragicomic burden to bear, and wish him well towards coming to grips with reality. Same as when I see a male trying to pass as a woman. He's almost certainly psychologically disturbed. Why make his life more difficult than it already must be by puncturing his self-delusion? It might even be dangerous, given that people are sometimes violent if their delusions are challenged. The safer and, yes, kinder option seems to be to let it go. I don't look at that so much as participating in the ruse as strategic neutrality.
Granted, there are also convincing hairpieces, and males who can more successfully pass for the opposite sex (at least to me; women, for what seem like obvious reasons, are said to be better on average at detecting the difference). My view has long been, if that's what you want, and you can get away with it, good for you. At any rate, it's not for me to set limits on what you can wear, or how you can cosmetically or surgically alter your own body. But if you don't want me to notice, the onus is on you to convince me, not on me to be convinced.
I take your point that according to contemporary progressive theology, only sexual identities, not racial or generational, seem to be up for grabs. The reason seems to be a belief that we all have an organic "gender identity" but not a racial, generational, or indeed apparently any other kind of identity. In addition to being a sex, we have a feeling about which sex we are; these are related, but distinct, and sometimes don't correlate in a given individual. i.e. one who is "trans." "Gender identity" seems to be progressive theology's substitute for the immoral soul.
"immortal soul"! (Freudian typo?!)
Once again, we are actually in agreement with each other. I suspect we both probably are happy to go along with what JK Rowling said, “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”
If you want to cover your bald patch with a hairpiece (or use a padded bra to make your breasts look bigger), well you do you because you are not hurting anyone. But if you are Lia Thomas walking around the women's changing rooms with your erect penis on display (after having publicly stated that you still are attracted to women), in front of women who perhaps have been raped by someone else's erect penis, then just your very presence may well be causing harm, and this is not allowed in my personal rule book. Not to mention that he is also cheating in sports and removing opportunities for women to win.
And while I do feel sorry for anyone living in a delusional state, my pity for them does not extend towards allowing them to expect everyone else to accommodate to their beliefs. This is not helpful in the end because it is supporting a state that is unachievable, no matter how many surgeries or medications are applied.