It’s self-evident that gender terms have always been synonymous with sex terms . Gender is not chosen by individuals ! It is socially constructed; not solopsistically arrogated. One’s gender has always been synonymous with one’s sex from human origins ! Gender is based on objective physical characteristics, not subjective “feelings.” That is a fundamental human _value_ , principle; trans ideology is a violation of fundamental human values , the opposite of a valid "human right " !
Claimimg one is the complementary opposite sex is as much of a lie/delusion as a person 6 feet tall claiming that they are five feet tall. It's an ibjectively false claim.
Trans ideology must be criticized, because it is profoundly scientifically ignorant, male supremacist and sociopathic . That’s not namecalling, but _truthtelling_ by me.
There is no name calling in what I said , but rather use of scientific terminology and arguments _critically_ .
] Sucheta’s womanifesto “Trying to explain anything to a bunch of hostile post-modernists whose only argument against a dissenting opinion is to send dissenters to gulags is sort of useless, but at least I can say I tried. Sex is biological and gender is an oppressive patriarchal construct that attributes certain behaviour and roles on the basis of sex. Trying to bring in the question of people with genital defects, ambiguous genitalia and other biological defects which are very rare is a mere distraction. It's like saying that having sight isn't a normal, biological feature because some people are born blind.
Gender is oppressive because it has been used to restrict, confine and oppress women by mounting certain expectations on them and forcing various restrictions on them. Biology also plays a major role in the oppression of women. Women are often subjected to sexual violence, attempts to control their reproductive choices and they are vulnerable on account of their biology too. Scientific research has proved that there's no difference in male or female brains. The only difference between men and women lies in their reproductive functions.
Gender roles are oppressive even for men, to an extent. If a man chooses to discard masculinity and do whatever he pleases...wearing dresses or makeup, learning how to knit, etc., well, more power to him. Wearing dresses or makeup doesn't make someone a woman because being a woman isn't a feeling, it's a biological fact. In fact, there is no such thing as "feeling like a woman". If you subscribe to that line of thought, then you're actually validating gender roles, you're actually saying that gender is not a construct, that women feel and act a certain way, and men feel and act a certain way. It is this notion of gender essentialism that feminists have fought against. Women have fought for the right to work outside of their homes, to wear what they want to and behave however they want.
The transgender movement isn't breaking down gender. It's actually reaffirming gender stereotypes when men say they "feel like a woman". There's no such thing as feeling like a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling, unless you affirm gender roles and femininity. Liking things that are stereotypically associated with women doesn't make you a woman, it makes you a gender non-confirming man.
It is also ridiculous that having lived lives steeped in male privilege, men now tell women how to be feminist. In many feminist conferences, "trans women" have prevented women from discussing periods, childbirth, contraception, even breast feeding because they find it triggering. They insist on not respecting the right of women to organise independently. Anyone who criticises them is threatened with violence, rape etc. which is typical male behaviour. This movement runs parallel to the MRA movement. When trans people complain about violence and oppression, let me point out that that violence is committed against them by men, not women. Yet they spend all their energy fighting feminists. The MRAs love this!
Does this somehow mean I hate so-called transpeople? I don't. I want all people to be free from all oppression and violence. But I will not have a man tell me what a woman is. Patriarchy has done that for thousands of years and the trans movement is its glorious descendant. It's interesting to note that most trans people are "male to female" and mostly white.
The trans movement has effectively moved the left away from issues like labour rights, workers' movements etc. We are making a huge mistake by co-opting post-modern politics. We know have trans-racial people, trans-disabled people and trans-species people. This has opened up Pandora's box and the only people who have benefited are the powers-that-be.
If I'm banned for this post, so be it.”
http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2016/12/abolish-male-supremacy-not-binary-gender.html
Abolish male supremacy not binary gender
The basic gender binary is an analogy to binary sex in all human societies, indigenous American and all around the globe. Hermaphroditism , homosexual , transvestitism have been incorporated forever, not just since the bourgeois "trans" fad. But third genders don't demolish the basic binary, because biology has an absolute binary - eggbearers and sperm bearers. There are no third types. So , the basic binary pair female-male: woman-man, remains even as third genders are added.
The goal is abolish male supremacy, not binary gender.
Different combinations and numbers of X and Y chromosomes do not produce a third type of gamete cell, so they all result in one of the two sex cell types if they result in a sex cell type. Sex is ultimately a phenotype , not a genotype.
200,000 years human society designated gender based on objective sex. It is a fundamental value in human society . You jump up in decadent , late bourgeois , Individualist society and suddenly individual subjective “feelings “ are the basis of self-designation , undermining a fundamental organizing principle of human society, social principle . Viva la difference ! As far as Communist Party positions , here is Marx on the issue of binary gender : “In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature – his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence – the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need – the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
It’s Time to Stop Denying Reality About Transgender Athletes Dec 21st, 2021 3 min read COMMENTARY Jared Eckert KEY TAKEAWAYS
Hormone levels alone don’t make someone a woman. And no amount of cross-sex hormones can undo the biological benefits of male genetics and development.
Polling shows that 67% of Americans oppose allowing biological males who identify as transgender to compete in girls and women’s athletics. new
I may have posted this article – or link – prior, but just in case:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/?fbclid=IwAR2V5hwP_pEyFqC4s1APQ0fMikBjA-LEyDIfPCUlu-RyaNrxi5CJZpowEIw#.YWEi4AazmoM.facebook
T Transgender is not transsexual or new
From: Charles Brown
A male who thinks he's a woman is not a female. There's no such thing as transferring from one sex to the other.
There's no such thing as a transsexual. There are transgenders. They are ancient. There were third genders to accommodate individuals born with combinations of male and female genitalia. Used to be called hermaphrodites; now termed "intersex," though "sex" is not precise usage here( there are no in between SEXES; only genders)
Anyway , homosexuals and transvestism are forms of transgender that are ancient. Greece and Rome are known for institutionalized homosexuality that was considered virtuous, morally superior even. The history of transgenders is not at all mainly as an oppressed group ; on the contrary .
So, the current forms of transgender by surgical replacement or mere personal declaration by Bruce Jenner is just the new transgender kids on the block: Arrogantly ignorant of basic biology and transgender history. As we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Title IX next year, elected officials should stand up for women, for reality, and for the American public.
A transgender athlete, Lia Thomas, dominated during a Nov. 20 women’s swim meet with athletes representing Cornell, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Thomas, a biological male who identifies as a woman, set new Ivy League records for the women’s 500 and 200 freestyle and smashed numerous UPenn records in women’s swimming.
In the 1650 freestyle final, Thomas, who used to swim on UPenn’s men’s team as Will Thomas, blew the competition out of the water—finishing first with a devastating, 38-second lead.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
Sadly, stories such as this one have become more common. If the Biden-Harris administration has its way, they could become the rule.
Just a few weeks after Thomas trounced biologically female teammates, President Joe Biden’s Department of Education announced plans to amend Title IX regulations to conform to the president’s executive order on what it calls “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”
Such amendments by the Education Department would allow biological males to compete against women in the name of “equality” and “preventing discrimination.”
But the truth is, these amendments would contradict reality, equality, and popular opinion.
Hormone levels alone don’t make someone a woman. And no amount of cross-sex hormones can undo the biological benefits of male genetics and development.
A 2020 study by the BMJ, formerly the British Journal of Medicine, shows that male athletes who are “transitioning” retain a competitive edge against women even after two years of taking estrogen.
In earlier days, one wouldn’t have needed a scientific study to prove the point. Thomas’ 38-second lead in the freestyle speaks for itself.
And yet, gender ideologues continue to deny reality.
Despite the science, the NCAA—and the International Olympics Committee—requires that a biological male’s testosterone must be suppressed for only one year before that male is free to compete against women.
Like the NCAA, the Biden administration’s latest announcement denies the science of biological sex.
However, denying the truth has consequences. Specifically, the denial of sexual reality robs women of the very opportunities protected by the federal law known as Title IX.
Under Title IX, women’s athletics received equal resources for facilities, training, recruitment, and scholarships. As a result, far more womenparticipated in sports.
In 1972, the number of female athletes in high school totaled 295,000. Now there are 2.6 million. The number of female college athletes has quintupled in that same time.
Title IX also is credited with decreasing dropout rates for women and increasing the number of women in higher education.
Allowing trans-identifying biological males to compete in women’s sports, or for women’s scholarships, reverses this progress.
Thomas’ drubbing of female swimmers in the Ivy League is just the latest example. The female athlete who would have placed first ended up placing second—to Thomas, a biological male with a proven biological advantage.
What’s more, Thomas’ personal bests in the 500 and 1650 freestyle would break current NCAA records in women’s swimming set by an Olympic gold medalist, Katie Ledecky.
Imagine if Thomas had competed against Ledecky and performed at a personal-best level. The world might never have come to know of Ledecky. Now imagine how many women athletes would miss out on scholarship and career opportunities if forced to compete against biological males in every contest. This is the world the White House seeks to usher in.
Being out of step with reality is bad enough. But the Biden administration is out of step with Americans, too.
Polling shows that 67% of Americans oppose allowing biological males who identify as transgender to compete in girls and women’s athletics. Twenty states are suing the Department of Education over the new regulations.
Over 37 states have introduced bills to keep women’s sports for women. Nine have passed such bills.
The Biden administration and its gender-activist allies made their unpopular view clear from Day One. The administration won’t be content to stop at changing Title IX regulations. It will go on to rewrite the law to force female athletes across the nation to compete against biological males.
Barring that, the White House will seek to change the law piece by piece. It will be the death of women’s sports by a thousand cuts.
Enough is enough. As we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Title IX next year, elected officials should stand up for women, for reality, and for the American public.
This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal
new
I may have posted this article – or link – prior, but just in case:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/?fbclid=IwAR2V5hwP_pEyFqC4s1APQ0fMikBjA-LEyDIfPCUlu-RyaNrxi5CJZpowEIw#.YWEi4AazmoM.facebook
“Who are the rich, white men institutionalizing transgender ideology?”
T w
A male who thinks he's a woman is not a female. There's no such thing as transferring from one sex to the other.
There's no such thing as a transsexual. There are transgenders. They are ancient. There were third genders to accommodate individuals born with combinations of male and female genitalia. Used to be called hermaphrodites; now termed "intersex," though "sex" is not precise usage here( there are no in between SEXES; only genders).
Anyway , homosexuals and transvestism are forms of transgender that are ancient. Greece and Rome are known for institutionalized homosexuality that was considered virtuous, morally superior even. The history of transgenders is not at all mainly as an oppressed group ; on the contrary .
So, the current forms of transgender by surgical replacement or mere personal declaration by Bruce Jenner is just the new transgender kids on the block: Arrogantly ignorant of basic biology and transgender history.
You know this is exactly what Chappelle was talking about Earl Marty Price said
CB and he’s correct . Also, there is no human right to t; in fact , it’s a violation of one of the most fundamental universal human values , binary gender. The effort to abolish binary gender is a violation of fundamental human values . Should be denounced .
Here’s Marx on binary gender as human essence :
The Human Essence :
“In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. In this natural species-relationship man’s relation to nature is immediately his relation to man, just as his relation to man is immediately his relation to nature – his own natural destination. In this relationship, therefore, is sensuously manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the extent to which the human essence has become nature to man, or to which nature to him has become the human essence of man. From this relationship one can therefore judge man’s whole level of development. From the character of this relationship follows how much man as a species-being, as man, has come to be himself and to comprehend himself; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become a natural essence – the extent to which his human nature has come to be natural to him. This relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need; the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need – the extent to which he in his individual existence is at the same time a social being.”
Not only that. I’d go further than Chappelle. Putting lgbt on the same level of liberation movement as women’s liberation or Black liberation is sexist and racist.
Marxist critique of trans by Brennan Collins; plus CB comment Sent from my iPhone On Jun 29, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Charles Brown
On Jun 29, 2019, at 8:51 AM, Charles Brown
The author of the above article argues that Marxist feminists (or ‘Red TERFs’) deny the ‘actual lived experiences’ of transwomen. Not only is this ironic as trans activists regularly dismiss women’s extensive lived experiences of male violence and patriarchal oppression, but it is a wholly untrue and unfair accusation. Criticism of gender has been integral to feminist criticism for centuries and feminists have continually outlined the oppression faced by those who do not conform to gender — particularly lesbians. Transwomen are males who do not conform to traditional masculinity and so often face abuse and even violence as a result of this gender nonconformity. Marxists feminists (and other women who are slurred as ‘TERFs’) do not deny that gender non-conforming males face oppression but we vehemently disagree with the categorisation of this oppression as ‘misogyny’.
Misogyny is a systemic form of oppression suffered by females. Whilst Marxist feminists do not wish to reduce women to their reproductive systems and genitalia, it is precisely these aspects of female anatomy which have been exploited and commodified in protocapitalist and capitalist states the world over for millennia. Therefore, within a social, economic and political context, the importance of recognising women as the biological class of female humans cannot be overstated. Women are oppressed under capitalism due to their reproductive value which, by virtue of material biological fact, is disproportionately greater than that of men. It is in the interests of capitalists to control the source of the workforce and women are, quite literally, the source of the next generation of exploitable workers. Since the advent of private property, it has also been in the interest of males to enforce monogamy upon females in order to ensure paternal lineage for the purposes of inheritance. When Engels asserts that ‘woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children’ in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, it is very clear that he is referring to the reproductive labour of female humans. As transwomen do not, by any material, scientific measure, belong to the biological class of humans who give birth, they are simply not victims of this systemic misogyny. Though progressives attempt to bastardise language, the fact remains that the birth-giving sex formerly known as ‘women’ suffer a specific form of oppression which transwomen will never know, and it is from this sex-based oppression that all other forms of misogyny stem.
Sex and gender are different, but they are inextricably linked. Once the economic need to control the reproductive labour of women was identified, it was reinforced by socially constructed gender roles to ensure future compliance. As such, the oppression of women can be roughly divided into two categories: misogyny which directly controls female reproductive labour (forced marriage, female genital mutilation, abortion etc); and misogyny which controls females more generally through gender roles (poorer job prospects due to perceived inferiority etc). Patriarchal oppression is based on both sex and gender, but as gender roles were designed to subjugate the female sex specifically, femininity is only oppressive to them. Gender cannot be divorced from the sex it was designed to oppress — it can only be abolished. Postmodernist notions of ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ indulge the individual’s perception of self and are only able to thrive in Western consumerist societies where narcissism is king. The rampant individualism associated with the abstract notion of subjective gender is in direct opposition to the collectivism and materialism of Marxism. Marxists must acknowledge gender as the socially constructed mode of oppression which positions the female sex as lowly caregivers and the male sex as dominant leaders, rather than a fantastical, personal, spiritual experience devoid of social and historical context.
If transwomen conform to female gender roles convincingly enough that others erroneously perceive them to be female, they may experience some more superficial forms of sexism such as catcalling, mansplaining, etc. However, they are not the intended victim of such misogyny. Unpleasant though it may be, it is misdirected. When gender non-conforming males mistakenly receive sexist abuse, they do not inherit the history of sex-based oppression that women share and so to suggest that these experiences are the same, or even similar, trivialises misogyny. Instead, the abuse faced by gender non-conforming men is likely to be homophobic in nature and/or as a result of also belonging to another oppressed group (black, latino, a victim of the sex trade, etc). Traditional notions of masculinity centre heterosexuality and so deviations from male gender roles often evoke homophobic responses. Eradicating homophobia and other abuse associated with policing masculinity is clearly an important cause but feminism is solely concerned with female oppression. Had the trans lobby accepted and acknowledged masculinity and male gender non-conformity as wholly distinct from the historic and enduring oppression of women, it is likely that they would have found a sympathetic ear amongst feminists. As it stands, their insistence on appropriating the struggle of women is thoroughly incompatible with feminist thought and is an insult to all females who know that they are oppressed on the basis of sex.
The author asserts that Marxists need to ‘update our theories to match the needs and conditions of oppressed sections of the working class’. This is revisionist nonsense. Marx’s method, in its scientific objectivity, transcends time. One of the great virtues of Marxism is that it has maintained its relevance throughout the centuries and the fact that Marx’s analysis carries weight in modern political discourse is testament to its timelessness. It is true that we must apply Marxist methodology to present and changing circumstances which Marx himself may not have foreseen, but this certainly does not mean that adherence to solid materialist analysis can be compromised. The analysis may change but the method does not. Just as science cannot bend to accommodate societal trends, nor can historical materialism be distorted to appease the identity politics of liberals.
The author also asserts that ‘the idea that there is something inherently non-female about the body of a trans women is reinforcing the binary gender categories that we ought to be seeking to dismantle’. Male bodies are inherently non-female. This is not an idea; it is a material reality. Although trans activists persist with the bogus ‘sex is a spectrum’ narrative, 99.98% of humans are unambiguously male or female. Biological sex is observable in every cell and every organ of our bodies. It is not assigned. It is a physical, material, and biological fact. As the author of the original article has done here, many trans activists conflate sex and gender in order to negate the importance of the former. Material reality (biological sex) cannot be ‘dismantled’ and to suggest that the physical should be reimagined as the metaphysical is fundamentally anti-Marxist. Marx went to great lengths to condemn this idealist manner of thinking in The German Ideology, stating that the materialist method ‘starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation or abstract definition, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions’. He goes on to say that ‘viewed apart from real history, these abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever’, making it plain that attempts to abstract gender from the history of sex-based female oppression has no place within Marxist analysis. One phrase from The German Ideology encapsulates the materialist method so completely that it would be remiss not to include it in relation to the contemporary gender identity debate: ‘life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life’. Currently, working class unity is impeded by the vast social chasm between the sexes and efforts must be made to bridge this gap in order to organise effectively. It is vital that, as Marxists, we apply rigorous historical materialism to understand the origin and development of misogyny over time in order to combat its present-day incarnations."
CB: Gender is culture , symbolic ; sex is nature , in born. Only humans have gender of all the sexually reproducing species , because only Homo sapiens has culture , language , symbolic communication.
In all human societies , for 200,000 years gender is assigned to individuals based on objective sex characteristics , not subjective feelings of the individual. This is cultural super-structure reflecting the _biological_ ( not economic) material base.
Materialist theory of human society is rooted in biology as well as class struggle .
I have the scientific anthropological Marxist critique of bourgeois liberal and postmodernist homosexual ideology , Foucault , Butler , LGBT .
You have a Liberal position . This is where your correct critique of ubiquitous liberalism in the Western left applies to you . Sort of criticism -self-criticism .
Yes Stone Age culture accommodated the natural phenomenon of hermaphroditism . ( in contrast to today’s trans , they had a category of third gender , not those with objective characteristics of one gender becoming the other fundamental , binary gender based on a subjective idealistic feeling in a bourgeois individualist society )
Most importantly , Stone Age cultures don’t have male supremacy . Much of homosexuality in societies with male supremacist families , private property and the state is caused by male supremacist ideology . So third genders in Stone Age societies cannot be compared to third genders in so-called Civilized societies ( actually they are barbaric and savage compared to Stone Age societies 2.5 million year old Stone Age societies
“Enjoy my latest essay. “ THE TRANSGENDER COUP: GENDER IDENTITY IDEOLOGY IS A DECLARATION OF WAR ON WOMEN! - By Priya Reddy
(Article below my essay is from 2015. Including it only to debunk this disingenuous comparison of feminists to white supremacists.)
Almost everyone wants privacy at awkward moments of vulnerability. That’s one of the main reasons for sex segregated facilities in the first place. The other big reason being, safety for women, not from transgender people specifically, but biological males... of any kind.., dysphoric or not.
Feminine and gay men have been using male bathrooms for decades. Homophobia does exist, but that’s a problem of male violence and not a problem to be solved by dissolving sex segregated boundaries and increasing female exposure to potentially violent males.
In any case it’s a larger social problem and not specifically women’s issue. Women already struggle with an epidemic of lethal male violence. That’s a statistical reality... not an irrational fear or “phobia”.
To frame a legitimate concern for personal safety as a form of discrimination or bigotry is at best, ignorant. Because this false framing is done deliberately, it is evidence of the sheer contempt gender ideologues have for female safety, needs and rights. To equate valid safety concerns with racially motivated discrimination, is an incredibly deceptive and manipulative tactic. It’s not just a weak argument but a blatantly misogynistic political attack on women’s rights.
Trans activists deliberately dismiss the rational and valid safety concerns women express as “transphobic” and unfounded. To compare the need for sex segregated facilities to support for racial segregation is intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate as white supremacists sought to dehumanize black people & restrict their civil rights.
Acknowledging the fact of one’s objective biological sex is not a form of dehumanization. Doctors do it all the time as required for medical reasons. Trans activists demand that one’s subjective “gender identity” be used instead as the criteria in determining whether someone is male or female.
This demand requires that women ignore what their own eyes tell them. It’s a dangerous demand which disarms our natural self preservation instincts against violent male sexual predators. We are expected to believe that any male in a female space ceases to be a threat and belongs there, simply because they say so.
If you’re uncomfortable with this arrangement, that’s too bad. Your needs just don’t matter anymore under the law. According to transgender activists, merely having a need for privacy or concern about safety are signs of irrational bigotry.
Jim Crow era racist segregationists openly viewed black people as inferior, whereas women defending sex segregated facilities do not view transgender people as inferior. To distinguish males from females as humans have done for tens of thousands of years doesn’t position anyone as inferior or superior.
Sex segregation doesn’t seek to establish a social hierarchy like racists do or argue for “female supremacy.” Women around the world have sought to protect themselves from the ever present threat of male violence, which of course gender ideologues conveniently ignore except when it serves to advance their arguments for transgender rights.
Some gender theorists even suggest that feminist concerns about male violence are over blown emotional reactions to personal experiences of trauma; which is simply a new version of the age old accusation that women are emotional and “hysterical.” A sexist stereotype which Patriarchal society has traditionally used to discredit women as irrational beings.
Not only is it rational to advocate for sex segregated spaces but such spaces are based on a long standing policy supported by statistical data which leaves no doubt about the reality and threat of male violence against women.
Despite widespread denial and disinformation, statistics show that transgender identified males, commit violence at the same rates as any other males. Not because they are transgender identified but because they are still biologically male.
To deny females sex segregated facilities is to put them at increased risk of violence and undermine their basic human rights. FULL STOP!
Is there a solution to this obvious conflict of interest? Yes! Transgender identified people should be given the option to use gender neutral facilities. Everyone’s needs can be met through rational solutions based on mutual respect, honesty, and a recognition of material reality and physical facts.
Instead we observe drastic and harmful policy changes based solely on the highly questionable and irrational claims of postmodern gender identity theory which denies that “female” is a distinct biological category or fact.
By this “logic” the female sex as a group, no longer qualifies as a protected class worthy of recognition or legal rights. What could be more unscientific, sexist, dehumanizing or dangerous to females?
This denial of “female” as a distinct fact is a purely ideological belief, comparable to white supremacist beliefs which also denied black people their humanity as a group and deemed them unworthy of dignity and legal protections.
The civil rights movement did not seek to reform or transform white supremacists into ethical, rational, respectful or even less racist people, as that was unlikely if not impossible. What black people sought to achieve instead was “equal protection under the law” - a concrete goal that demanded legislation and a set of codified legal rights.
Similarly, women cannot seek to reform the male supremacist mindset or transform the dehumanizing misogynistic beliefs inherent to gender identity ideology and transgender activism. That would be utterly futile and a total waste of time. We must instead work towards concrete and achievable political goals which focus on defending sex based legal right for females and legislation which DOES RECOGNIZE FEMALE AS A DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL FACT necessitating lawful protections.
To prevent women from attaining this crucial political goal, gender ideologues have already re-defined “female” under the law, by replacing “sex” as a protected category with “gender identity” which effectively destroys the basis of sex based legal definitions and protections.
Unfortunately the transgender lobby is way ahead of women’s rights activism in this regard. They have been playing offense while women are scrambling and playing defense even as our hard won legal rights are dissolved with a stroke of a pen.
This historic political coup by transgender activists was only possible because gender ideology has convinced many women (not all thankfully!) that surrendering and relinquishing our human rights was “inclusive.” Otherwise you were being selfish and mean and vilified as a “hateful Nazi bigot” or “terf” - the “woke” Leftist equivalent of Feminazi.
Let’s remember that these exact same coercive, emotionally manipulative tactics are often used in abusive relationships by self serving malignant narcissistic predators who seek to control their partners or prey through shaming, inducing guilt, and other forms of gas lighting.
To not submit unquestioningly to the ideas and demands of transgender ideology immediately puts one at risk of being vilified and ostracized by one’s “radical” and “progressive” community and even at risk of job loss, expulsion from your sports team or school. Violent threats and even physical violence towards non compliant women from gender ideologues is very common.
This insidious political coup by the transgender political agenda was fully aided and abetted by Democrats, liberals, Leftist, and far Left social justice movements. Perhaps they forgot that justice for women requires being able to actually define one accurately - and not just ideologically.
Justice would be better served if we stopped gas lighting women about their own biological sex, and what actually constitutes being “female”. Gender ideologues deliberately misinterpret any mention of the female body as “biological essentialism” and accuse feminists of “defining women as vaginas” in an effort to minimize the role of one’s sex as a material factor in sex based social oppression.
No feminist defines “women by their vaginas” as trans activists claim. Obviously every female is far greater than the sum of her physical parts, but she is no less than her biology either.
We know what female means as we are reminded daily of our inescapable, cradle to grave, LIVED PHYSICAL reality. Our bodies bleed regularly and give birth strictly due to our biology and not because of our feelings or identity. This is why the meaning of female is based on the immutable fact of biological sex.
We cannot identify our way out of our female bodies or sex based oppression. Were that possible, we would have done so tens of thousands of years ago instead of being targeted for rape, unwanted pregnancies, dying in childbirth and suffering illegal abortions, and otherwise exploited solely because of our biological vulnerabilities under the brutally violent subjugation of patriarchy which still seeks to enslave the female sex based on our bodies and not the legal fiction or theory of “identity.”
To define female as a feeling in a man’s head or “gender” stereotype is a blatant form of theft or appropriation. Female does not mean dysphoric male. To reduce female from objective fact to an abstraction or subjective “identity” is an extreme form of misogyny; which also conveniently enables males to colonize female spaces and dismantle sex based protections.
See how that works? The inherent misogyny of transgender ideology, with the full support of the Left, has unsurprisingly paved the way for political agenda that poses as serious a threat to women’s legal rights as serious anything proposed by the Far Right. While the religious Right recognizes female biology, they also seek to criminalize it. Whereas the gender ideologues of the Left deny female biology altogether.
Women are now caught between two ugly versions of Patriarchy and must forge a movement independently which serves and centers female bodies & lives just like the women’s movements of the 1960’s did and feminist movements have historically done.
A new women’s political party and movement will be essential and necessary as our former allies in the Left have become the useful idiots of Patriarchy who can only be expected to continue to betray women and mind fuck us with gender ideology even as they actively and aggressively proceed to dismantle sex based legal protections. These despicable hypocrites and brainwashed morally bankrupt degenerates have elevated the feelings of men over the life and death needs of women.
They must be regarded as the enemies of women, because of their uncritical support for policies which will undoubtedly further endanger the female sex by increasing the risk of male violence; ...an ugly truth they choose to ignore. Gender ideologues, law makers and the mainstream media narratives also collectively refuse to even acknowledge that male violence is a leading cause of death for females.
Unlike gender identity ideology & postmodern queer theory (the basis for the beliefs and claims made by transgender activists) - our female bodies DO NOT LIE!
Incidentally, you know what rhymes with LIE? ...DIE! As in.., “Women hating ideologies, rape culture promoting, delusional fascistic lies and sociopathic patriarchal demands and male supremacy can fuck off and DIE!”
A war has been declared on women but we will fight back and fight to the death! Our human rights are non negotiable! Expect resistance!
Respect after all.., is a TWO WAY STREET! By Priya Reddy
"Sex segregated toilets were fought for by women for generations, including the Suffragettes, and finally the 1922 Workplace Regulations made a legal requirement for all business to provide women’s toilet facilities, and it is still a legal requirement in the UK today.
Prior to this, the lack of facilities for women was a political tactic to ensure women were kept in the home. If you cannot safely use the toilet in public or at work, it becomes hard to impossible to go out in public or to work. The introduction of women’s toilets came hand in hand with women breaking free of the confines of the home and finding independence and freedom." ....breaking free of the confines of the home and finding independence and freedom....breaking free of the confines of the home and finding independence and freedom....breaking free of the confines of the home and finding independence and freedom...”
- Excepted from “The History of Women’s Public Toilets in Britain” -by Claudia Elphick
(Feel free to share this post but please attribute my name to my writing. Thx!) 🙏🏼👊🏽🔥
Someone said "Trans people are fine. Trans rights activists (TRAs) who want to put post modern gender theory into law are not. Womanhood is based purely on biological sex, not gender. Obviously, you can be the butchest lesbian in the world and still be a woman. TRAs want to define womanhood as feminine people. They want to drug gay and lesbian kids to promote their political agenda. They want to gas light lesbians into sex with men, the oldest misogyny in the book. These are TRAs:"
CB responding to Mordecai below : LGBT activists are the ones who lump transcrazies in with gay lib , not me. It's the "T" in LGBT.
CB responding to Mordecai below : LGBT activists are the ones who lump transcrazies in with gay lib , not me. It's the "T" in LGBT.
Furthermore , the majority of gay men do not have an ugly plight , and they are in dominating elites in a number of segments of society such as Hollywood, dance , perfirming arts and the Catholic Church , colleges et al. Furthermore, in the US sodomy was decriminalized and gay marriage was legalize by the Supreme Court. And discrimination against gays is illegal as part of the Civil Rights laws. There's nothing else to achieve politically.
No what you say is not material history at all. Before 20th Century gay men were even more part of the elites and ruling class starting with Ancient Greece and Rome , and then among royalty, and British imperialist , colonizing sailors and soldiers who had gay customs because they had no women with them; and of course among the rulers of the Catholic Church and otherwise. Prisons are another source of large numbers of gay men. Gay men were not discriminated against until the 20th Century or so when the whites started worrying about falling white population numbers. Most homosexual men are not made by state demands but the desires of gay elites who want lovers from the working class ( a small percentage of gay men may have epigenetically derived homosexsexual preference) . We have this before us now with Catholic priests raping boys.
Gender is a social construct since the beginning of the Genus Homo starting with Homo Habilis 2.5 million years ago. Most of human society is socially constructed ! , That's our unique species characteristic . Gender is a social construct upon an analogy to sex , a highly rational social construct.
Socially constructed gender existed for 100,000's of years before the state existed ; the state originates "only" 6,000 years ago.
Gay "lib" is only connected with Lesbians who seek to abolish binary gender, which is not the path to women's liberation ; abolition of male supremacy is.
It is LBGT that is dividing the working class with right wing concepts like "heterosexism" which is a slander of heterosexual workers , and divides the working class.
! Being averse to homosex is part of natural/instinctive heterosexuality . Heterosexuality is not just desiring heterosex , but being averse to homosex ; it's an instinct , not just socially constructed.
Also, many people want grandchildren , so they don't want their children to be homosexual . That is _ not_ an invidious discrimination , but a moral one.
Mordecai : "Charles Brown I'm in agreement with you up until you lump gay liberation in with this trans insanity - and when you deny the ugly plight of gay males.
That's material history - and in many parts of the world - material reality now - that gay men - especially feminine presenting men - are regularly tortured and murdered - and have been for all of recorded history for the most part.
I challenge you to understand that the rigid enforcement of gender roles is directly related to empowering and sustaining the nationalistic state - which needs masculine males to perform its wars and deeds of international cruelty.
Can't have feeling sensitive males - they don't work well in hierarchies, in chains of command - in doing the unthinkable to the state's enemies.
And so such traits are demonized - and associated with females - and men and women are taught that feelings are a weakness, that "heroism" is about being a great killing machine without emotions. And then women and feminine males are lesser than the masculine males who are the darlings of the state who carry out their cruel demands and sacrifice their own bodies for the state's demands. These things are all interconnected, and none of that I just wrote denies that sex is real. Sex is real. Gender norms are a social construct. Gender norms are there to uphold the state's desire for constant war at all levels, and for pacifying its citizens, both male and female. Gay liberation, and Lesbian liberation, are intimately interrelated with Women's liberation generally, and with Men's and all Working Class's liberation more generally." Furthermore , the majority of gay men do not have an ugly plight , and they are in dominating elites in a number of segments of society such as Hollywood, dance and the Catholic Church , et al. Furthermore, in the US sodomy was decriminalized and gay marriage was legalize by the Supreme Court. And discrimination against gays is illegal as part of the Civil Rights laws. There's nothing else to achieve politically.
CB :No what you say is not material history at all. Before 20th Century gay men were even more part of the elites and ruling class starting with Ancient Greece and Rome , and then among royalty, and British imperialist , colonizing sailors and soldiers who had gay customs because they had no women with them; and of course among the rulers of the Catholic Church and otherwise. Prisons are another source of large numbers of gay men. Gay men were not discriminated against until the 20th Century or so when the whites started worrying about falling white population numbers.
Most gay men are not made by state demands but the desires of gay elites who want lovers from the working class ( a small percentage of gay men have epigenetically derived gay sexual preference) . We have this before us now with Catholic priests raping boys. Gender is a social construct since the beginning of the Genus Homo starting with Homo Habilis 2.5 million years ago. Most of human society is socially constructed ! That's our unique species characteristic . Gender is a social construct upon an analogy to sex , a highly rational social construct. Socially constructed gender existed for 100,000's of years before the state existed ; the state originates "only" 6,000 years ago. Gay "lib" is only connected with Lesbians who seek to abolish binary gender, which is not the path to women's liberation ; abolition of male supremacy is. It is LBGT that is dividing the working class with right wing concepts like "heterosexism" which is a slander of heterosexual workers , and divides the working class. Being averse to homosex is part of natural heterosexuality . Heterosexuality is not just desiring heterosex , but being averse to homosex ; it's an instinct , not just socially constructed. Also, many people want grandchildren , so they don't want their children to be homosexual . That is _ not_ an invidious discrimination , but a moral one. Mordecai : "Charles Brown I'm in agreement with you up until you lump gay liberation in with this trans insanity - and when you deny the ugly plight of gay males. That's material history - and in many parts of the world - material reality now - that gay men - especially feminine presenting men - are regularly tortured and murdered - and have been for all of recorded history for the most part. I challenge you to understand that the rigid enforcement of gender roles is directly related to empowering and sustaining the nationalistic state - which needs masculine males to perform its wars and deeds of international cruelty. Can't have feeling sensitive males - they don't work well in hierarchies, in chains of command - in doing the unthinkable to the state's enemies. And so such traits are demonized - and associated with females - and men and women are taught that feelings are a weakness, that "heroism" is about being a great killing machine without emotions. And then women and feminine males are lesser than the masculine males who are the darlings of the state who carry out their cruel demands and sacrifice their own bodies for the state's demands. These things are all interconnected, and none of that I just wrote denies that sex is real. Sex is real. Gender norms are a social construct. Gender norms are there to uphold the state's desire for constant war at all levels, and for pacifying its citizens, both male and female. Gay liberation, and Lesbian liberation, are intimately interrelated with Women's liberation generally, and with Men's and all Working Class's liberation more generally."
Decoupled from reality Genderist ideology is based on flawed science and worse logic, argues Amanda MacLean Here are just a few examples of the recent impacts of gender ideology.
The 2019 Boston Marathon has opened its female competition to people who were “assigned male at birth”, even if they have had no hormones or surgery.
Lesbian advocate and tennis star Martina Navratilova has been dropped by an LGBT+ sports organisation for questioning the inclusion of males in women’s elite sports.
In Canada, 16 women beauticians face prosecution for refusing to wax the penis and testicles of someone presenting as a transwoman.
Credit Suisse executive director Phillip (aka Pippa) Bunce - a “proud husband and father”, according to that individual’s Twitter profile - is currently listed at number 21 in the Top 50 Female Champions of Women in Business by out-standing.org, and last year secured a similar accolade from the Financial Times.
Last week, the mainstream media in the UK reported that five clinicians have resigned from the Tavistock Centre over fears that homophobic bullying is causing lesbian and gay children to identify as transgender, leading to what amounts to medical “conversion therapy”.
And ‘Get the L Out’, a lesbian splinter group from the LGBT+ movement, recently released Lesbians at ground zero - a report graphically describing the routine exclusion and harassment of lesbians who refuse to accept transwomen as potential sexual partners.
The left’s response has not been to stand for the rights of lesbians and other women and girls, but, along with every mainstream political party, to suppress debate and to brand anyone who raises concerns or even asks questions with accusations of transphobia, bigotry and, bizarrely, fascism. There is ‘no debate’: trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary genders are real and valid. To even question these statements, it is claimed, is to threaten the very existence of transgender people.
There is no doubt that transgender people exist: there are many people who are driven to present themselves to society as if they were members of the opposite sex. Some transgender people suffer from the crippling condition of gender dysphoria that can make it psychologically unbearable to recognise themselves, or to be recognised in society, as the sex they actually are. Such people have a right to access hormonal and surgical treatments where they are necessary and medically indicated. And, irrespective of whether they have had hormones and surgery or not, and whether they have gender dysphoria or not, every individual has the right to wear clothing, adopt mannerisms and perform social roles that make them comfortable and happy. When these traits are commonly associated with members of the opposite sex, they have the right to do so without fear of discrimination, abuse or violence.
Working towards a society that is intolerant of violent and bullying behaviour, rather than cracking down on personal expression, must be part of the socialist programme and will have benefits not just for transgender people, but for women, who are frequently prevented from realising their personal, social, economic and political potential through sexist enforcement of roles and behaviour.
When framed like this, it seems almost inconceivable that the arguments raging on this topic are not primarily between the conservative right and the progressive left, but are largely on the left itself, between gender activists and leftwing feminists. But the heat in the debate comes from the gender ideologists’ hotly contested claim that transwomen are literally women. Not honorary women, or living as if they were women, or like women - as most people have previously understood - but literally women. We are told that transwomen are a type of woman in exactly the same way as black, disabled or lesbian women are. Therefore to exclude transwomen from any women’s service or facility is the moral equivalent of excluding black or disabled women. Indeed, during March, Vancouver Rape Relief Centre, which is open exclusively to women clients, lost its city council funding after transgender campaigner Morgane Oger argued exactly that. What is ‘woman’?
Was Oger’s successful challenge to the Vancouver Rape Relief Centre justified? That depends what you mean by the word ‘woman’. Or, for that matter, male and female. According to Oger, the biological woman is a myth. Those opposed to Oger insist on the reality of the dictionary definitions: a man is an adult human male, and a woman is an adult human female. But a key part of the gender ideologists’ argument is that a transwoman is a woman, and always has been, irrespective of any surgery or hormone treatment. In other words, a fully intact male is literally a woman if he believes himself to be a woman. This is on the basis of a self-reported ‘gender identity’ that is alleged to be the only reliable indicator of ‘gender’, and is claimed to exist independently of biological sex.
‘Gender’ here is no longer determined by physical sex, but by an innate feeling of being a man, being a woman or being something else - a non-binary identity not limited to those two choices. Having this innate feeling - a fundamental knowledge of who you are, not linked to bodily sex - is, supposedly, common to everyone. Thus a transwoman claims to have exactly the same feeling of ‘being a woman’ as all women do, and should be accepted as such.
This understanding of ‘gender identity’ was not in the minds of MPs at Westminster when they voted to introduce the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in 2004. The law was introduced in response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that it was a breach of human rights to deny transsexuals the right to marry. The obvious conclusion should have been that all adults, irrespective of their sex, should have the right to marry the partner of their choice. But MPs decided that the public was not ready for that step, leaving lesbians and gay men to wait another 10 years for the Equal Marriage Act. However, the GRA was introduced in 2004 in order to allow an estimated 5,000 transsexuals to gain a gender recognition certificate (GRC), allowing them to change the sex marker on their birth certificates. This creates the legal fiction of being the opposite sex, in order to allow them to marry a same-sex partner.
The process of acquiring a GRC involves two years of living ‘in role’ as the desired sex, and a string of medical and psychological assessments - a process of gatekeeping that lobby groups such as Stonewall consider intrusive and humiliating. In response, in 2017 the Tory government announced it wanted to update the GRA to make it easier for transgender people to have their gender recognised through a simple process of self-declaration without any medical gatekeeping. The change in the language from ‘transsexual’ to ‘transgender’ is significant, because it refers to self-declared gender identity, not to physical transition. Some estimates suggest that there are around 500,000 people in the UK who would declare a change of gender, and that many of these people have not gone through physical transition, and do not intend to.
This ideology has sparked off a new women’s movement across the world, opposing the notion that ‘woman’ is just a feeling. Many women see it as threatening hard-won rights that the feminist movement had fought to achieve for decades - particularly the provision of single-sex facilities and services, and political representation. If gender identity, now completely decoupled from the body, trumps sex in all circumstances, then that would give people who they see as men access to women’s shortlists, women’s awards, women’s refuges, women’s prisons, women’s toilets and women’s changing rooms. With sexual assault and harassment from males being everyday occurrences, many see self-declaration of gender identity as a threat.
And if any man can declare himself to be a woman, then what does the word ‘woman’ even mean? The debate has turned nasty, particularly online. Lesbians who reject trans partners are condemned as ‘vagina fetishists’; women have been banned from Twitter for statements such as ‘There is no such thing as a female penis’ and, in a worrying move for free speech, there have been a number of cases where hate-incident legislation has led the UK police to phone or visit people in their homes for making similar statements online. To question any part of the genderist ideology is to be branded transphobic, a ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, or TERF. But is biology a TERF too? Categories Decoupled from reality Genderist ideology is based on flawed science and worse logic, argues Amanda MacLean Here are just a few examples of the recent impacts of gender ideology. The 2019 Boston Marathon has opened its female competition to people who were “assigned male at birth”, even if they have had no hormones or surgery. Lesbian advocate and tennis star Martina Navratilova has been dropped by an LGBT+ sports organisation for questioning the inclusion of males in women’s elite sports. In Canada, 16 women beauticians face prosecution for refusing to wax the penis and testicles of someone presenting as a transwoman. Credit Suisse executive director Phillip (aka Pippa) Bunce - a “proud husband and father”, according to that individual’s Twitter profile - is currently listed at number 21 in the Top 50 Female Champions of Women in Business by out-standing.org, and last year secured a similar accolade from the Financial Times. Last week, the mainstream media in the UK reported that five clinicians have resigned from the Tavistock Centre over fears that homophobic bullying is causing lesbian and gay children to identify as transgender, leading to what amounts to medical “conversion therapy”. And ‘Get the L Out’, a lesbian splinter group from the LGBT+ movement, recently released Lesbians at ground zero - a report graphically describing the routine exclusion and harassment of lesbians who refuse to accept transwomen as potential sexual partners. The left’s response has not been to stand for the rights of lesbians and other women and girls, but, along with every mainstream political party, to suppress debate and to brand anyone who raises concerns or even asks questions with accusations of transphobia, bigotry and, bizarrely, fascism. There is ‘no debate’: trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary genders are real and valid. To even question these statements, it is claimed, is to threaten the very existence of transgender people. There is no doubt that transgender people exist: there are many people who are driven to present themselves to society as if they were members of the opposite sex. Some transgender people suffer from the crippling condition of gender dysphoria that can make it psychologically unbearable to recognise themselves, or to be recognised in society, as the sex they actually are. Such people have a right to access hormonal and surgical treatments where they are necessary and medically indicated. And, irrespective of whether they have had hormones and surgery or not, and whether they have gender dysphoria or not, every individual has the right to wear clothing, adopt mannerisms and perform social roles that make them comfortable and happy. When these traits are commonly associated with members of the opposite sex, they have the right to do so without fear of discrimination, abuse or violence. Working towards a society that is intolerant of violent and bullying behaviour, rather than cracking down on personal expression, must be part of the socialist programme and will have benefits not just for transgender people, but for women, who are frequently prevented from realising their personal, social, economic and political potential through sexist enforcement of roles and behaviour. When framed like this, it seems almost inconceivable that the arguments raging on this topic are not primarily between the conservative right and the progressive left, but are largely on the left itself, between gender activists and leftwing feminists. But the heat in the debate comes from the gender ideologists’ hotly contested claim that transwomen are literally women. Not honorary women, or living as if they were women, or like women - as most people have previously understood - but literally women. We are told that transwomen are a type of woman in exactly the same way as black, disabled or lesbian women are. Therefore to exclude transwomen from any women’s service or facility is the moral equivalent of excluding black or disabled women. Indeed, during March, Vancouver Rape Relief Centre, which is open exclusively to women clients, lost its city council funding after transgender campaigner Morgane Oger argued exactly that. What is ‘woman’? Was Oger’s successful challenge to the Vancouver Rape Relief Centre justified? That depends what you mean by the word ‘woman’. Or, for that matter, male and female. According to Oger, the biological woman is a myth. Those opposed to Oger insist on the reality of the dictionary definitions: a man is an adult human male, and a woman is an adult human female. But a key part of the gender ideologists’ argument is that a transwoman is a woman, and always has been, irrespective of any surgery or hormone treatment. In other words, a fully intact male is literally a woman if he believes himself to be a woman. This is on the basis of a self-reported ‘gender identity’ that is alleged to be the only reliable indicator of ‘gender’, and is claimed to exist independently of biological sex. ‘Gender’ here is no longer determined by physical sex, but by an innate feeling of being a man, being a woman or being something else - a non-binary identity not limited to those two choices. Having this innate feeling - a fundamental knowledge of who you are, not linked to bodily sex - is, supposedly, common to everyone. Thus a transwoman claims to have exactly the same feeling of ‘being a woman’ as all women do, and should be accepted as such. This understanding of ‘gender identity’ was not in the minds of MPs at Westminster when they voted to introduce the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in 2004. The law was introduced in response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that it was a breach of human rights to deny transsexuals the right to marry. The obvious conclusion should have been that all adults, irrespective of their sex, should have the right to marry the partner of their choice. But MPs decided that the public was not ready for that step, leaving lesbians and gay men to wait another 10 years for the Equal Marriage Act. However, the GRA was introduced in 2004 in order to allow an estimated 5,000 transsexuals to gain a gender recognition certificate (GRC), allowing them to change the sex marker on their birth certificates. This creates the legal fiction of being the opposite sex, in order to allow them to marry a same-sex partner. The process of acquiring a GRC involves two years of living ‘in role’ as the desired sex, and a string of medical and psychological assessments - a process of gatekeeping that lobby groups such as Stonewall consider intrusive and humiliating. In response, in 2017 the Tory government announced it wanted to update the GRA to make it easier for transgender people to have their gender recognised through a simple process of self-declaration without any medical gatekeeping. The change in the language from ‘transsexual’ to ‘transgender’ is significant, because it refers to self-declared gender identity, not to physical transition. Some estimates suggest that there are around 500,000 people in the UK who would declare a change of gender, and that many of these people have not gone through physical transition, and do not intend to. This ideology has sparked off a new women’s movement across the world, opposing the notion that ‘woman’ is just a feeling. Many women see it as threatening hard-won rights that the feminist movement had fought to achieve for decades - particularly the provision of single-sex facilities and services, and political representation. If gender identity, now completely decoupled from the body, trumps sex in all circumstances, then that would give people who they see as men access to women’s shortlists, women’s awards, women’s refuges, women’s prisons, women’s toilets and women’s changing rooms. With sexual assault and harassment from males being everyday occurrences, many see self-declaration of gender identity as a threat. And if any man can declare himself to be a woman, then what does the word ‘woman’ even mean? The debate has turned nasty, particularly online. Lesbians who reject trans partners are condemned as ‘vagina fetishists’; women have been banned from Twitter for statements such as ‘There is no such thing as a female penis’ and, in a worrying move for free speech, there have been a number of cases where hate-incident legislation has led the UK police to phone or visit people in their homes for making similar statements online. To question any part of the genderist ideology is to be branded transphobic, a ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’, or TERF. But is biology a TERF too? Categories
The core of the genderist argument lies in undermining belief in the reality and significance of the traditional male and female categories that are based on the physical sex of the body. This attack on our everyday understanding of the sexes is designed to force the concession that there is no value in distinguishing between people on the basis of their physical sex - because it is, supposedly, a badly flawed concept in the first place. Key to this argument is the existence of a class of intersex people. It is important, therefore, to understand what the evidence is really telling us and I intend to go into it in some detail.
Everyday experience - and ‘high school biology’ - tell us that there are only two sexes: male and female. But recent research, it is claimed, reveals that the boundaries between what we have traditionally thought of as male and female are vague, fuzzy, ill-defined. Even scientists cannot agree on what ‘male’ and ‘female’ really are! In fact, rather than being a neat ‘binary’ with only two discrete categories, sex is now a spectrum. The ‘spectrum of sex’ case is summed up in the news article, ‘Sex redefined’, by science journalist Claire Ainsworth, published in the prestigious journal Nature in 2015. Do these claims stand up to scrutiny?
Ainsworth presents a weird and wonderful kaleidoscope of cases where sex chromosomes, sex hormone profile, sexual anatomy and gonads (ovaries and testes) do not ‘line up’ - that is to say, where individuals deviate from the typical male or typical female combinations of these characteristics. She lays out a linear sex spectrum starting with ‘typical male’ at one end and passing through to ‘typical female’ at the other, via a range of variations known as ‘differences of sex development’ (DSDs - otherwise referred to as intersex conditions). Her case is encapsulated by DSD biologist Arthur Arnold: “… there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females … and that’s often a very difficult problem, because sex can be defined a number of ways”; and gender clinician Eric Vilain: “… since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter” (my emphasis).
To the lay man, lay woman, or lay non-binary, other-gendered person, this all sounds deeply convincing when their mind has just been completely boggled by the 94-year-old woman with male DNA in her brain and the 70-year-old father of four with a womb. But what Ainsworth fails to do from the start is to explain what we are really talking about when we talk about the sexes. As the zoologist, JZ Young, says in his introduction to the classic text The life of vertebrates,
It is splendid to be aware of many details, but only by the synthesis of these can we obtain either adequate means for handling so many data or knowledge of the natures we are studying. In order to know life … we must look beyond the details of individual lives and try to find rules governing all.
In other words, to understand the natural world as more than a swirling kaleidoscope of endless, confusing variation - as presented by the genderists - it is necessary to step back and look at the general picture, while acknowledging that there will always be some exceptions to any biological rule.
Like many others in the gender debate, Ainsworth plunges directly into a discussion of the complexities and confusions around sex without first defining her terms. In addition, she makes no distinction between the different ways that scientists use the words, ‘sex’, ‘male’ and ‘female’, when they relate to the whole organism, and when they relate to mechanisms within the organism. These are crucial errors.
Reductionist disciplines that look at different parts of organisms - such as genes, tissues, physiology or neurobiology - use the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ as shorthand for ‘of males/females’ or ‘typical of males/females’. We identify traits like chromosomes or hormone profiles as typical of male or female by first dividing the population into male or female categories on the basis of other characteristics. Having made that distinction, we can then compare the two groups and ask questions about how and why they differ. Thus, the reason we call the XX chromosome combination ‘female’ and XY ‘male’ is because each genotype usually plays an important role in determining the development of male or female anatomy, and thus is very closely associated with those sexes. But the reason we can say this is that we first divided the population into males and females, using other criteria, before checking what chromosomes they had.
To discover what those males and females are, of which XX and XY chromosomes are typical, we look to those scientific disciplines that study whole organisms: their life histories, evolution and behaviour; how they relate to each other and to their environments. Crucially, it is this understanding of the sexes that is most relevant to people in society and in politics, because it concerns itself with whole people and how we interact socially and economically. In ‘whole organism’ disciplines, sex relates to an organism’s potential reproductive role: to produce sperm (male), or to produce ova (female). Evolution has resulted in different body plans that are associated with these roles - we are all familiar with what they are in the human species. Therefore, in any discussion of human beings as individuals, or as social, economic or political groups, in contradiction to Vilain, as quoted above, there is one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter - it is the definition of sex that applies to the whole organism: its potential reproductive function.
Whether it is fulfilled or not, having a reproductive system of the type that produces sperm or gestates a foetus is significant, because it is associated with a whole complex of other characteristics that together have a dramatic effect on life history - particularly, for humans as mammals, the enormous difference in reproductive investment and reproductive risk that can be expected, not least when it comes to the chances of being literally left holding the baby. Intersex
It is at this stage that the gender ideologists will cry foul and say: what about all those intersex people? So it is worth looking now at the prevalence of intersex, and to ask whether it is justifiable to use it to argue that the categories of male and female are not valid.
Statistics on the prevalence of intersex are freely bandied about, as the gender argument rages: 4%, 1.7%, 0.02%. For the lay person, it is difficult to know what credibility should be given to these widely varying figures - indeed what they mean at all.
The 4% figure can be immediately discounted - its origins are apocryphal. A 1993 paper by Anne Fausto-Sterling “cited a figure attributed to John Money that the frequency of intersexuality might be as high as 4% of live births, but Money (1993) responded that he never made such a claim”.1
The 1.7% figure, however, has a solid basis: it is the result of a comprehensive review of worldwide scientific literature by Melanie Blackless et al in the American Journal of Human Biology (2000), while the 0.02% represents a subset of the same data. Before delving into that paper further, it is important to understand the definition of ‘intersex’ that it uses. Intersex conditions in this context are defined as deviation from a Platonic ideal of what male or female bodies ‘should’ be like - the paper’s ambition being to demonstrate that sexual characteristics - specifically the size and shape of genitals - vary naturally, just as do body shape, body size and voice timbre; deviation from the norm therefore does not necessitate medical intervention on newborn infants who are unable to give consent to potentially life-changing surgery.
To demonstrate that a significant proportion of humanity deviates from a Platonic ideal is, however, a far cry from proving that there are multiple sexes, or that intersex people are neither male nor female, or that intersex people are a mixture of the two sexes - all claims that the genderists make, based on Blackless et al’s figure.
The bad news for the genderists is that the 1.7% figure does not tell them what they think it does. It certainly does tell us that 1.7% of the human population has to deal with their bodies differing in a significant, and often distressing, way from the ‘norm’ expected for male and female. Where this is apparent to others on a daily basis, they may have to deal with social embarrassment or misunderstanding, intolerance and hostility; and, whether their condition is obvious or not, they may have to wrestle with infertility, or with the lifelong impacts of unnecessary childhood surgery. All of these are serious social and personal issues that require support and understanding. However, differing from the norm for male or female is not the same as being neither male nor female, or being ‘a bit of both’.
Blackless et al compile data on the frequency of a number of intersex conditions in the human population. Some of these conditions do convey what the name ‘intersex’ suggests - a combination of male and female gonads and reproductive anatomy. Blackless et al use the term “true hermaphroditism” to describe the intersex condition, ovotestis - one of the rarest intersex conditions, in which the gonads have a mixture of ovarian and testicular tissue, or where one gonad is an ovary and the other a testis. (Note that the term ‘hermaphrodite’ is now considered outdated and offensive by many.) This condition is very rare, occurring in approximately one in 100,000 live births, or 0.001% of the human population. Blackless et al list four other conditions that result in either ambiguous genitalia (where it is not clear at birth whether the child is male or female) or a situation where the gonads are male, but the genitalia female in appearance, or vice versa: Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome - a very variable condition, affecting 0.00076% of the population. Those affected have testes, and the external genitalia may be atypically male (malformations of the penis, or micro-penis); ambiguous; or atypically female (enlarged clitoris). Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - affecting 0.00760% of humanity, resulting in testes paired with incomplete female anatomy. Classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia - occurs in 0.00770% of live births; those affected have ovaries and external male genitalia. Idiopathic - 0.00090% have similar features to those described above, but with unknown causes. The total incidence of these conditions comes to 0.017% of the human population. Adding the figure for ovotestis, we have a total of 0.018% of humanity whose reproductive system may have features common to both sexes. With rounding up, this is the origin of the 0.02% figure. (Note that Blackless et al do not present figures on two other conditions: 5-alpha reductase deficiency - another variable condition similar to those above; and persistent Mullerian duct syndrome, which can result in normal male anatomy coupled with an incomplete uterus and fallopian tubes. The incidence of these conditions is still unknown, but both are considered rare.) What is glaringly obvious is that in none of these conditions is there any sign of a sex other than male or female - in this small percentage of humanity, we are still talking about either a mix of male and female features, or atypical male and female features. Nowhere is there a third gamete, or an actual or potential role in reproduction that differs from the two we are already aware of. In the remaining intersex conditions - which make up the majority of those investigated by Blackless et al - ovaries are always accompanied by female reproductive organs, and only female reproductive organs. Testes are always and only accompanied by male reproductive organs. This means that 99.98% of humans fall clearly into either ‘male’ or ‘female’ sex categories - using the definition that applies to whole organisms, as I have outlined above. Diverse range What accounts for the remaining 1.68% of the human population that is intersex? It consists of people with a range of conditions, which are considered intersex because of variations in sex chromosomes, or that arise from hormonal causes. They produce a diverse range of variations in sex characteristics: in males, atypical development of the penis or missing testes; in females, the absence of the womb, a closed vagina, enlarged clitoris or missing ovaries; and in both sexes conditions may result in infertility, a failure to go through puberty, or developing secondary sex characteristics at puberty that are more typical of the other sex. These conditions are often distressing, and some also affect other aspects of metabolism, growth and bone development. But note - those affected by such conditions still fall clearly into the male and female categories, when sex is defined as having a male or female type of reproductive system. Some examples of these conditions will serve for clarification. First, a large proportion of people with such conditions are women with the condition known as ‘late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia’ (1.5% out of the 1.7% of intersex people). These women are born with XX chromosomes, complete female internal and external reproductive system and genitalia, and ovaries. They are female, not male - their body development has clearly followed the female pathway and their potential role in reproduction would only ever involve gestating a foetus, not producing sperm. Nevertheless, late-onset CAH is considered an intersex condition, because sufferers have a hormonal imbalance - an excess of testosterone - that starts to affect them during childhood or puberty and can result in enlargement of the clitoris and excess body hair. Irregular periods and problems with fertility are also common. While the bodies of late-onset CAH women may deviate from some Platonic ideal of what a woman should look like, and while they have a hormonal profile that is more typical of males than females, it is no more reasonable to argue that they are male, on the basis of excess body hair and high levels of testosterone, than it would be to claim that Ronnie Corbett was female because of his short height. Similarly, take the case of a woman with Swyer syndrome, who has no ovaries, but otherwise complete female anatomy and secondary sex characteristics. Does it makes sense to turn around and decide that she is ‘really male’ when we find that she has an XY chromosome combination? To use an analogy, imagine that all buildings are constructed with a copy of the blueprint embedded within each brick. Imagine breaking open the bricks from a thatched cottage, and finding the blueprint for a skyscraper within them. Would it be reasonable to declare that the thatched cottage is actually a skyscraper? Of course not - in fact it would be insane. To say that a woman with Swyer syndrome is male would be equally ridiculous. The ‘male’ Y chromosome interfered with the development of her ovaries, but very obviously it did not play the part in building a sexed body that it usually does - it did not make her male. It made her an infertile female, not a third sex. To sum up, it is by investigating the chromosomal/genetic and hormonal make-up of individuals that we are often able to reach an understanding and explanation of why people have variations in their sexual development. Often, it is because of an unusual chromosomal or hormonal make-up, which may be typical of the opposite sex. But possessing these does not mean you are the opposite sex or are partially so. Most intersex cases involve variations of sexual development within the male or female sex classes. 99.98% of the human population have features of only one or the other class, and not both; and there is no evidence of any third sex class. It should be noted at this point that in an estimated 1% of births, sexual development is atypical; and between 0.05% and 0.07% require an expert to investigate ‘ambiguous genitalia’ that are hard to identify. But a very small penis is still a penis, and is a male reproductive organ; an enlarged clitoris is still a female organ. There are two sexes and only two, and the vast majority of people fit clearly into either one or the other. At this point, a genderist is likely to throw in the argument that defining male and female, or men and women, according to reproductive function is offensive, degrading or exclusionary, because it (a) reduces people to their genitals/reproductive role and (b) excludes many people who are currently included in those categories. The first of these arguments is truly a red herring - to say that someone has a certain type of body is simply descriptive. It is not to say that that is all their being consists of, or that they must fulfil their potential reproductive function. This is an attempt to invoke the traditional feminist argument that women must not be ‘reduced to’ reproductive functions, without understanding it - the force of the argument is that women’s lives must not be limited to, or by, childbearing or the expectation of it; women must be allowed to play a full and active part in all realms of society. As for the argument that the definitions are exclusionary, can a man still be considered male if he has had a vasectomy? If a woman has had a hysterectomy, should she no longer be considered female? This argument would, apparently, apply even if the woman involved had borne eight children, and it is at this point that we need to start questioning the validity of applying postmodernist analytical techniques to scientific categorisations. The genderist logic requires that every single member of a group must possess all of the defining features of the group, not just some of them, or we must abandon the original categorisation. Using the same approach, it is possible to argue that the distinction between chimps and humans is arbitrary. Not every chimp has opposable toes (sometimes they are mutilated by opponents), not every human being has language, some humans are born completely covered with body hair, etc, etc - therefore, since we can always find individuals who do not satisfy all the characteristics by which we define the group, we can no longer distinguish between chimpanzees and human beings. Applying such a highly academic and abstract, postmodern take to real-life situations is not necessarily wise - we are likely to encounter several difficulties if we decide that the chimp/human distinction is no longer valid. Any categorisation in biological sciences always involves generalisation. We recognise that some individuals may be atypical, which is to say that they may not possess all of the characteristics of others in the same group. Nevertheless, that does not preclude them from membership of the group if they share other features. For instance, a three-legged creature that shares a resemblance to members of the group known as ‘dogs’ will be categorised as belonging to that group, even when one of the defining characteristics of a dog is that it has four legs. Similarly, when an adult human being has an incomplete or non-functioning female reproductive system, she still belongs to the group, ‘people with female reproductive systems’ - otherwise known as ‘women’. Compassionate The illogical arguments of the gender ideologists are examples of masterful sophistry, designed to baffle the ill-informed with ‘science’, and to persuade the public that a fully formed male is female, and always has been female, solely because he says he is. And the reverse for females making the claim to be male. These claims are on the basis of a subjective, internal feeling of ‘gender identity’, which is sometimes invoked as a manifestation of ‘brain sex’ - ‘the brain of a woman in the body of a man’. Brain sex is a highly controversial subject in its own right, and splits opinion nearly as much as transgenderism. But, whichever side of the ‘brain sex’ argument is right, it cannot be used to support the argument that a man is a woman. If, when all is said and done, we find that there is no conclusive evidence of significant average differences between the brains of males and females, then clearly there is no basis for the claim of having a man’s brain in a woman’s body, or vice versa. On the other hand, if there is a clear distinction between the two sexes, once again, as for height, you might be unusual for a male, but you would still be unequivocally male, because the criteria for distinguishing between males and females lie elsewhere. We do not yet know what the root causes of gender dysphoria are. But, if having an evidently male or female body causes you extreme discomfort and distress in social situations, then that is good grounds in itself for society to deal with you compassionately and to make accommodation where it can. We must seek to create a compassionate society that welcomes and supports those suffering from the crippling dysphoria that leads them to seek surgery and manipulate their hormones. It is essential that transgender people are able to survive, thrive and function freely in society without fear of discrimination. It is on that footing that we must approach transgender issues. But tolerance and understanding of the trans experience will fail if they are based on bad and disingenuous interpretations of science. Trans people are perfectly capable of recognising the reality of biological sex, while having difficulty accepting it on a personal basis. Sound arguments for acceptance can be made without twisting and distorting our understanding of the whole of humanity and indeed the natural world - and there are signs of a trans backlash against the excesses and illogic of the genderists.2 While acknowledging the material reality that there are only two sexes, we must reject the traditional sexist view that self-expression, mannerisms, talents, ambitions and roles in life - other than reproduction itself - must be limited by, or linked to, our biological sex. The fact that much of the left unquestioningly accepts and regurgitates an ideology in which the subjective feelings of the individual trump objectively observable conditions is a sign that we have abandoned the physical, material reality on which our politics is based, and replaced it with a subjective individualism that is alien to any class-based analysis. Sex is still one of the major axes of oppression globally: female foetuses are selectively aborted because of it, women are enslaved and trafficked into prostitution because of it, girls’ genitals are mutilated and sewn together because of it, girls in poverty are denied education because of it. The Chibok schoolgirls were not asked how they identified before being abducted and raped. Without acknowledging the reality of sex, it is impossible to even name sexism, never mind understand or defeat it. The left must stop pretending that sex neither exists nor matters. The biological woman is not a myth - she is real, she is here - and she is angry. Notes American Journal of Human Biology: https://docplayer.net/34440-How-sexually-dimorphic-are-we-review-and-synthesis.html.↩ See, for instance, https://transrational.co.uk.↩ Sent from my iPhone The core of the genderist argument lies in undermining belief in the reality and significance of the traditional male and female categories that are based on the physical sex of the body. This attack on our everyday understanding of the sexes is designed to force the concession that there is no value in distinguishing between people on the basis of their physical sex - because it is, supposedly, a badly flawed concept in the first place. Key to this argument is the existence of a class of intersex people. It is important, therefore, to understand what the evidence is really telling us and I intend to go into it in some detail. Everyday experience - and ‘high school biology’ - tell us that there are only two sexes: male and female. But recent research, it is claimed, reveals that the boundaries between what we have traditionally thought of as male and female are vague, fuzzy, ill-defined. Even scientists cannot agree on what ‘male’ and ‘female’ really are! In fact, rather than being a neat ‘binary’ with only two discrete categories, sex is now a spectrum. The ‘spectrum of sex’ case is summed up in the news article, ‘Sex redefined’, by science journalist Claire Ainsworth, published in the prestigious journal Nature in 2015. Do these claims stand up to scrutiny? Ainsworth presents a weird and wonderful kaleidoscope of cases where sex chromosomes, sex hormone profile, sexual anatomy and gonads (ovaries and testes) do not ‘line up’ - that is to say, where individuals deviate from the typical male or typical female combinations of these characteristics. She lays out a linear sex spectrum starting with ‘typical male’ at one end and passing through to ‘typical female’ at the other, via a range of variations known as ‘differences of sex development’ (DSDs - otherwise referred to as intersex conditions). Her case is encapsulated by DSD biologist Arthur Arnold: “… there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females … and that’s often a very difficult problem, because sex can be defined a number of ways”; and gender clinician Eric Vilain: “… since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter” (my emphasis). To the lay man, lay woman, or lay non-binary, other-gendered person, this all sounds deeply convincing when their mind has just been completely boggled by the 94-year-old woman with male DNA in her brain and the 70-year-old father of four with a womb. But what Ainsworth fails to do from the start is to explain what we are really talking about when we talk about the sexes. As the zoologist, JZ Young, says in his introduction to the classic text The life of vertebrates, It is splendid to be aware of many details, but only by the synthesis of these can we obtain either adequate means for handling so many data or knowledge of the natures we are studying. In order to know life … we must look beyond the details of individual lives and try to find rules governing all. In other words, to understand the natural world as more than a swirling kaleidoscope of endless, confusing variation - as presented by the genderists - it is necessary to step back and look at the general picture, while acknowledging that there will always be some exceptions to any biological rule. Like many others in the gender debate, Ainsworth plunges directly into a discussion of the complexities and confusions around sex without first defining her terms. In addition, she makes no distinction between the different ways that scientists use the words, ‘sex’, ‘male’ and ‘female’, when they relate to the whole organism, and when they relate to mechanisms within the organism. These are crucial errors. Reductionist disciplines that look at different parts of organisms - such as genes, tissues, physiology or neurobiology - use the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ as shorthand for ‘of males/females’ or ‘typical of males/females’. We identify traits like chromosomes or hormone profiles as typical of male or female by first dividing the population into male or female categories on the basis of other characteristics. Having made that distinction, we can then compare the two groups and ask questions about how and why they differ. Thus, the reason we call the XX chromosome combination ‘female’ and XY ‘male’ is because each genotype usually plays an important role in determining the development of male or female anatomy, and thus is very closely associated with those sexes. But the reason we can say this is that we first divided the population into males and females, using other criteria, before checking what chromosomes they had. To discover what those males and females are, of which XX and XY chromosomes are typical, we look to those scientific disciplines that study whole organisms: their life histories, evolution and behaviour; how they relate to each other and to their environments. Crucially, it is this understanding of the sexes that is most relevant to people in society and in politics, because it concerns itself with whole people and how we interact socially and economically. In ‘whole organism’ disciplines, sex relates to an organism’s potential reproductive role: to produce sperm (male), or to produce ova (female). Evolution has resulted in different body plans that are associated with these roles - we are all familiar with what they are in the human species. Therefore, in any discussion of human beings as individuals, or as social, economic or political groups, in contradiction to Vilain, as quoted above, there is one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter - it is the definition of sex that applies to the whole organism: its potential reproductive function. Whether it is fulfilled or not, having a reproductive system of the type that produces sperm or gestates a foetus is significant, because it is associated with a whole complex of other characteristics that together have a dramatic effect on life history - particularly, for humans as mammals, the enormous difference in reproductive investment and reproductive risk that can be expected, not least when it comes to the chances of being literally left holding the baby. Intersex It is at this stage that the gender ideologists will cry foul and say: what about all those intersex people? So it is worth looking now at the prevalence of intersex, and to ask whether it is justifiable to use it to argue that the categories of male and female are not valid. Statistics on the prevalence of intersex are freely bandied about, as the gender argument rages: 4%, 1.7%, 0.02%. For the lay person, it is difficult to know what credibility should be given to these widely varying figures - indeed what they mean at all. The 4% figure can be immediately discounted - its origins are apocryphal. A 1993 paper by Anne Fausto-Sterling “cited a figure attributed to John Money that the frequency of intersexuality might be as high as 4% of live births, but Money (1993) responded that he never made such a claim”.1 The 1.7% figure, however, has a solid basis: it is the result of a comprehensive review of worldwide scientific literature by Melanie Blackless et al in the American Journal of Human Biology (2000), while the 0.02% represents a subset of the same data. Before delving into that paper further, it is important to understand the definition of ‘intersex’ that it uses. Intersex conditions in this context are defined as deviation from a Platonic ideal of what male or female bodies ‘should’ be like - the paper’s ambition being to demonstrate that sexual characteristics - specifically the size and shape of genitals - vary naturally, just as do body shape, body size and voice timbre; deviation from the norm therefore does not necessitate medical intervention on newborn infants who are unable to give consent to potentially life-changing surgery. To demonstrate that a significant proportion of humanity deviates from a Platonic ideal is, however, a far cry from proving that there are multiple sexes, or that intersex people are neither male nor female, or that intersex people are a mixture of the two sexes - all claims that the genderists make, based on Blackless et al’s figure. The bad news for the genderists is that the 1.7% figure does not tell them what they think it does. It certainly does tell us that 1.7% of the human population has to deal with their bodies differing in a significant, and often distressing, way from the ‘norm’ expected for male and female. Where this is apparent to others on a daily basis, they may have to deal with social embarrassment or misunderstanding, intolerance and hostility; and, whether their condition is obvious or not, they may have to wrestle with infertility, or with the lifelong impacts of unnecessary childhood surgery. All of these are serious social and personal issues that require support and understanding. However, differing from the norm for male or female is not the same as being neither male nor female, or being ‘a bit of both’. Blackless et al compile data on the frequency of a number of intersex conditions in the human population. Some of these conditions do convey what the name ‘intersex’ suggests - a combination of male and female gonads and reproductive anatomy. Blackless et al use the term “true hermaphroditism” to describe the intersex condition, ovotestis - one of the rarest intersex conditions, in which the gonads have a mixture of ovarian and testicular tissue, or where one gonad is an ovary and the other a testis. (Note that the term ‘hermaphrodite’ is now considered outdated and offensive by many.) This condition is very rare, occurring in approximately one in 100,000 live births, or 0.001% of the human population. Blackless et al list four other conditions that result in either ambiguous genitalia (where it is not clear at birth whether the child is male or female) or a situation where the gonads are male, but the genitalia female in appearance, or vice versa: Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome - a very variable condition, affecting 0.00076% of the population. Those affected have testes, and the external genitalia may be atypically male (malformations of the penis, or micro-penis); ambiguous; or atypically female (enlarged clitoris). Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - affecting 0.00760% of humanity, resulting in testes paired with incomplete female anatomy. Classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia - occurs in 0.00770% of live births; those affected have ovaries and external male genitalia. Idiopathic - 0.00090% have similar features to those described above, but with unknown causes. The total incidence of these conditions comes to 0.017% of the human population. Adding the figure for ovotestis, we have a total of 0.018% of humanity whose reproductive system may have features common to both sexes. With rounding up, this is the origin of the 0.02% figure. (Note that Blackless et al do not present figures on two other conditions: 5-alpha reductase deficiency - another variable condition similar to those above; and persistent Mullerian duct syndrome, which can result in normal male anatomy coupled with an incomplete uterus and fallopian tubes. The incidence of these conditions is still unknown, but both are considered rare.) What is glaringly obvious is that in none of these conditions is there any sign of a sex other than male or female - in this small percentage of humanity, we are still talking about either a mix of male and female features, or atypical male and female features. Nowhere is there a third gamete, or an actual or potential role in reproduction that differs from the two we are already aware of. In the remaining intersex conditions - which make up the majority of those investigated by Blackless et al - ovaries are always accompanied by female reproductive organs, and only female reproductive organs. Testes are always and only accompanied by male reproductive organs. This means that 99.98% of humans fall clearly into either ‘male’ or ‘female’ sex categories - using the definition that applies to whole organisms, as I have outlined above. Diverse range What accounts for the remaining 1.68% of the human population that is intersex? It consists of people with a range of conditions, which are considered intersex because of variations in sex chromosomes, or that arise from hormonal causes. They produce a diverse range of variations in sex characteristics: in males, atypical development of the penis or missing testes; in females, the absence of the womb, a closed vagina, enlarged clitoris or missing ovaries; and in both sexes conditions may result in infertility, a failure to go through puberty, or developing secondary sex characteristics at puberty that are more typical of the other sex. These conditions are often distressing, and some also affect other aspects of metabolism, growth and bone development. But note - those affected by such conditions still fall clearly into the male and female categories, when sex is defined as having a male or female type of reproductive system. Some examples of these conditions will serve for clarification. First, a large proportion of people with such conditions are women with the condition known as ‘late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia’ (1.5% out of the 1.7% of intersex people). These women are born with XX chromosomes, complete female internal and external reproductive system and genitalia, and ovaries. They are female, not male - their body development has clearly followed the female pathway and their potential role in reproduction would only ever involve gestating a foetus, not producing sperm. Nevertheless, late-onset CAH is considered an intersex condition, because sufferers have a hormonal imbalance - an excess of testosterone - that starts to affect them during childhood or puberty and can result in enlargement of the clitoris and excess body hair. Irregular periods and problems with fertility are also common. While the bodies of late-onset CAH women may deviate from some Platonic ideal of what a woman should look like, and while they have a hormonal profile that is more typical of males than females, it is no more reasonable to argue that they are male, on the basis of excess body hair and high levels of testosterone, than it would be to claim that Ronnie Corbett was female because of his short height. Similarly, take the case of a woman with Swyer syndrome, who has no ovaries, but otherwise complete female anatomy and secondary sex characteristics. Does it makes sense to turn around and decide that she is ‘really male’ when we find that she has an XY chromosome combination? To use an analogy, imagine that all buildings are constructed with a copy of the blueprint embedded within each brick. Imagine breaking open the bricks from a thatched cottage, and finding the blueprint for a skyscraper within them. Would it be reasonable to declare that the thatched cottage is actually a skyscraper? Of course not - in fact it would be insane. To say that a woman with Swyer syndrome is male would be equally ridiculous. The ‘male’ Y chromosome interfered with the development of her ovaries, but very obviously it did not play the part in building a sexed body that it usually does - it did not make her male. It made her an infertile female, not a third sex. To sum up, it is by investigating the chromosomal/genetic and hormonal make-up of individuals that we are often able to reach an understanding and explanation of why people have variations in their sexual development. Often, it is because of an unusual chromosomal or hormonal make-up, which may be typical of the opposite sex. But possessing these does not mean you are the opposite sex or are partially so. Most intersex cases involve variations of sexual development within the male or female sex classes. 99.98% of the human population have features of only one or the other class, and not both; and there is no evidence of any third sex class. It should be noted at this point that in an estimated 1% of births, sexual development is atypical; and between 0.05% and 0.07% require an expert to investigate ‘ambiguous genitalia’ that are hard to identify. But a very small penis is still a penis, and is a male reproductive organ; an enlarged clitoris is still a female organ. There are two sexes and only two, and the vast majority of people fit clearly into either one or the other. At this point, a genderist is likely to throw in the argument that defining male and female, or men and women, according to reproductive function is offensive, degrading or exclusionary, because it (a) reduces people to their genitals/reproductive role and (b) excludes many people who are currently included in those categories. The first of these arguments is truly a red herring - to say that someone has a certain type of body is simply descriptive. It is not to say that that is all their being consists of, or that they must fulfil their potential reproductive function. This is an attempt to invoke the traditional feminist argument that women must not be ‘reduced to’ reproductive functions, without understanding it - the force of the argument is that women’s lives must not be limited to, or by, childbearing or the expectation of it; women must be allowed to play a full and active part in all realms of society. As for the argument that the definitions are exclusionary, can a man still be considered male if he has had a vasectomy? If a woman has had a hysterectomy, should she no longer be considered female? This argument would, apparently, apply even if the woman involved had borne eight children, and it is at this point that we need to start questioning the validity of applying postmodernist analytical techniques to scientific categorisations. The genderist logic requires that every single member of a group must possess all of the defining features of the group, not just some of them, or we must abandon the original categorisation. Using the same approach, it is possible to argue that the distinction between chimps and humans is arbitrary. Not every chimp has opposable toes (sometimes they are mutilated by opponents), not every human being has language, some humans are born completely covered with body hair, etc, etc - therefore, since we can always find individuals who do not satisfy all the characteristics by which we define the group, we can no longer distinguish between chimpanzees and human beings. Applying such a highly academic and abstract, postmodern take to real-life situations is not necessarily wise - we are likely to encounter several difficulties if we decide that the chimp/human distinction is no longer valid. Any categorisation in biological sciences always involves generalisation. We recognise that some individuals may be atypical, which is to say that they may not possess all of the characteristics of others in the same group. Nevertheless, that does not preclude them from membership of the group if they share other features. For instance, a three-legged creature that shares a resemblance to members of the group known as ‘dogs’ will be categorised as belonging to that group, even when one of the defining characteristics of a dog is that it has four legs. Similarly, when an adult human being has an incomplete or non-functioning female reproductive system, she still belongs to the group, ‘people with female reproductive systems’ - otherwise known as ‘women’. Compassionate The illogical arguments of the gender ideologists are examples of masterful sophistry, designed to baffle the ill-informed with ‘science’, and to persuade the public that a fully formed male is female, and always has been female, solely because he says he is. And the reverse for females making the claim to be male. These claims are on the basis of a subjective, internal feeling of ‘gender identity’, which is sometimes invoked as a manifestation of ‘brain sex’ - ‘the brain of a woman in the body of a man’. Brain sex is a highly controversial subject in its own right, and splits opinion nearly as much as transgenderism. But, whichever side of the ‘brain sex’ argument is right, it cannot be used to support the argument that a man is a woman. If, when all is said and done, we find that there is no conclusive evidence of significant average differences between the brains of males and females, then clearly there is no basis for the claim of having a man’s brain in a woman’s body, or vice versa. On the other hand, if there is a clear distinction between the two sexes, once again, as for height, you might be unusual for a male, but you would still be unequivocally male, because the criteria for distinguishing between males and females lie elsewhere. We do not yet know what the root causes of gender dysphoria are. But, if having an evidently male or female body causes you extreme discomfort and distress in social situations, then that is good grounds in itself for society to deal with you compassionately and to make accommodation where it can. We must seek to create a compassionate society that welcomes and supports those suffering from the crippling dysphoria that leads them to seek surgery and manipulate their hormones. It is essential that transgender people are able to survive, thrive and function freely in society without fear of discrimination. It is on that footing that we must approach transgender issues. But tolerance and understanding of the trans experience will fail if they are based on bad and disingenuous interpretations of science. Trans people are perfectly capable of recognising the reality of biological sex, while having difficulty accepting it on a personal basis. Sound arguments for acceptance can be made without twisting and distorting our understanding of the whole of humanity and indeed the natural world - and there are signs of a trans backlash against the excesses and illogic of the genderists.2 While acknowledging the material reality that there are only two sexes, we must reject the traditional sexist view that self-expression, mannerisms, talents, ambitions and roles in life - other than reproduction itself - must be limited by, or linked to, our biological sex. The fact that much of the left unquestioningly accepts and regurgitates an ideology in which the subjective feelings of the individual trump objectively observable conditions is a sign that we have abandoned the physical, material reality on which our politics is based, and replaced it with a subjective individualism that is alien to any class-based analysis. Sex is still one of the major axes of oppression globally: female foetuses are selectively aborted because of it, women are enslaved and trafficked into prostitution because of it, girls’ genitals are mutilated and sewn together because of it, girls in poverty are denied education because of it. The Chibok schoolgirls were not asked how they identified before being abducted and raped. Without acknowledging the reality of sex, it is impossible to even name sexism, never mind understand or defeat it. The left must stop pretending that sex neither exists nor matters. The biological woman is not a myth - she is real, she is here - and she is angry. Notes American Journal of Human Biology: https://docplayer.net/34440-How-sexually-dimorphic-are-we-review-and-synthesis.html.↩ See, for instance, https://transrational.co.uk.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment