You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2021.
Sometimes a concept is so good one must ruthlessly crib from another source – So here ya be, the notion of Chesterson’s Fence and how important it is to understand the reasons why something was done in the first place.
“Second-order thinking will get you extraordinary results, and so will learning to recognize when other people are using second-order thinking. To understand exactly why this is the case, let’s consider Chesterton’s Fence, described by G. K. Chesterton himself as follows:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
***
Chesterton’s Fence is a heuristic inspired by a quote from the writer and polymath G. K. Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing. It’s best known as being one of John F. Kennedy’s favored sayings, as well as a principle Wikipedia encourages its editors to follow. In the book, Chesterton describes the classic case of the reformer who notices something, such as a fence, and fails to see the reason for its existence. However, before they decide to remove it, they must figure out why it exists in the first place. If they do not do this, they are likely to do more harm than good with its removal. In its most concise version, Chesterton’s Fence states the following:
Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.
Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don’t grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and “had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody.” Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don’t want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.”
Kathleen Lowrey is one the few and the brave women inside the University of Alberta that manage to retain an authentically feminist outlook. Furthermore, her criticisms of the new gender ideology are spot on and her insights are useful in understanding the ontology of transactivism in academic and real-world settings.
Sex, Ptolemaic Style
“The pervasiveness of this formula helps to explain the widespread enthusiasm for gender identity ideology in the academy. The relevant flippages are of at least three kinds. First is the reversal of the sex:gender relation as it is commonly understood. Ordinarily sex has primacy. It is the biological given upon which the cultural constructions of gender are elaborated. In gender identity ideology, the terms are reversed. Gender is essential, and sex is the unsteady social construct. Second is the relation of men to women. Conventionally, the social standing of men is understood to be privileged relative to that of women. This relationship is reversed in gender identity ideology. Trans identified men (“transwomen”) are figured as vulnerable relative to women and are even described as the most vulnerable of all women. Third, the quotidian apprehension is that children develop their gender identities as they grow up and engage with and adjust to cultural norms. Under gender identity ideology, it is asserted that children know from very young ages exactly their gender identities independent of cultural conditioning. As a corollary, adult men who express gender identities late in life that appear to be wholly fashioned out of sexist cultural norms about femininity have in fact been real women–the very realest of women–all along. The department colleague who was my most enthusiastic denouncer placed two signs on her office door after I put up gender critical feminist messaging on mine: “trans rights are human rights” and “transwomen are women.” She understood very well the messaging required of a “trans ally” and displayed it quite correctly.
Gender critical feminists like me notice, of course, that one infinitely more often sees and hears the slogan “transwomen are women” than its counterpart “transmen are men.” To understand why this is the case, you’d have to pay attention to patterns of power in the world rather than to Ptolemaic valence-flipping. One of the signs on my office door that most infuriated feminist academic women colleagues on social media described the parallels between men’s rights activism and trans rights activism. Many feminist academic women clearly saw it as their moral and intellectual duty to decry this assertion.”
An individual on Twitter has seen fit to ‘tackle’ all of the opposing talking points deployed against transgender ideology. Let’s see and talk about them here.
A limited and simplistic definition that is correct? Heaven forbid. Concision is a beautiful thing. Accurate descriptions of the reality we inhabit are a boon to meaningful discussions and debate.
Transgender women, that is to say men who through gender-magic think they are women, remain male. For a quick self demonstration please identify as rich and demand entrance into the Davos conference, or even identify as royalty and demand entrance into Buckingham Palace. Thinking you are something does not, in fact, make you that something.
Culturally and legally speaking? I have no idea what this phrase means. Men in some jurisdictions have pushed through laws that allow them to change legal documents such as passports and birth certificates, but legal fictions that do not comport with reality are precisely that – fiction.
Human beings cannot change their sex.
Women are adult human females – this definition is very clear and precise and works as long as you respect the reality we all share. Transgender women (men) do not fall into this category because men are not women. It is really as simple as that. Unfortunately many male trans activists have a very strong sense of male entitlement often argue vehemently that their feelings of gender supersede the material reality we all share.
We cannot allow self-delusion to be the basis of the norms and laws we have in society.
This is category error on such a large scale. Tall, short, black, white, lesbian, straight, disabled women, et cetera all belong to one category. They are adult human females – they possess the physiology to become pregnant and give birth. If you have the large immobile gametes then it is a pretty safe bet to say that you are female. The term women encompasses the vast range and variety of females we see today. What this category does not include, of course, is men and yes even men who honestly think that they are women.
So much confusion is introduced into these conversations because transgender ideology, by its very nature is definitionally opaque. For instance, the use of ‘cisgender’ even in this little blurb. To understand how it is being misused one must first define what gender is.
Gender are sets of societal expectations and norms that are applied to women and men. Gender expectations are fluid and and are society specific, gender expectations are often formed from the roles the sexes play and have played in our society. In other words they are the sex specific stereotypes used in society to evaluate and differentiate people in society. See below.
Gender is arbitrary and often restricts and inhibits individuals from acting outside their ‘approved’ set of gendered expectations. So, gender is imposed on individuals in society and unsurprisingly the roles assigned to females are given less value and prestige.
So, we as individuals are not gender roles. We are individuals with personalities that include roles, attributes, and stereotypes from both sides of the gender role divide.
Thus, the notion of ‘cisgender’ means that you as a person comply with the stereotypical set of ideas associated with your sex. For women though associating with the stereotypes that limit your participation in society and circumvent your boundaries is problematic. Therefore women who are connected with reality and the material conditions imposed upon them by the strictures of gender oppose the notion of ‘cisgender’ because they do not ‘identify’ with that set of stereotypical norms that inhibits them as individuals in society.
Unfortunately in our society one of the foundational axis of discrimination and oppression is the sex you happen to be born into. Sad, but what you are expected to do in society and which roles you are expected to take on are very dependent on the physical bits and parts that make up female and male physiology.
It is not biological essentialism to state that all women have large gametes, double XX chromosomes, and cervixes. To be biologically esentiallist, one would have to state that women are nothing more (or have no worth outside of their) than their reproductive parts/potential.
Of course no one checks ones chromosomes or gametes to see whether or not they are going to harass them. Our species ability to reproduce is based on identifying, determining, and judging the sexual fitness of the other sex. We, in general, are very capable of identifying who is male and who is female in society. No genital/chromosomal inspections required.
If we care about facts and reality then the statement only women have cervixes must stand, because it is accurate and true.
Just because you feel like you should be in a category does not mean that you should be in said category. Please refer to the identifying as rich example.
(Female) Non-binary people and transmen (females) individuals gender beliefs do not change the material conditions of their body. If transmen or women who call themselves ‘non-binary’ (both cases biological females) don’t understand that they have cervix, then that is very much their problem, as facts are independent of gendered feelings.
Linguistic erasure of females is one of the key features of trans ideology. If women cannot name their physical reality, how do they combat and improve their conditions in society? The trend is disconcerting as conditions that happen only to females are having the term woman and female replaced by vague nondescript words. For instance –
So, female erasure is happening because of the self perceived needs of those who choose to self-identify is a problematic feature of trans ideology and it is erasing females from society.
Disagreeing with anything a transactivist says is usually categorized transphobic. Let’s take a peek at a small sample of people who have a ‘pretty solid understanding of consent‘.
So, yeah. Talk about understanding consent is nice, but demonstrating it would be much more nice.
Gender expression is subjective and therefore not a good standard to judge risks with regards to safeguarding. Males are responsible for the vast majority of sexual crimes and assaults against women and children, therefore they (regardless of self-identification) should not be in female only spaces.
And that is because of their sex, not their gender.
Beards are not the problem. It is the males attachted to the beards with the creepy, rapey, attitudes which are the problem.
No community is monolithic. The fact that the LGB Alliance and it’s many sister organizations exist across the world are a testament to that fact. The LGB Alliance sprang into being to defend the rights of people who believe that sexual orientation is important.
A tiny minority of entitled males believe that through gender-magic they are female and want to rearrange society to comport with their subjective gender feelings – they’ve had a fair amount of traction. *shrugs*
Well, taken out of context, I’m certain you got that from what Julia Long said. Judge for yourself folks –
Julia long was speaking to the biological fact that human beings cannot change sex and the claims that transwomen are in fact real women are not possible as women categorically speaking, are adult human females.
Misrepresenting arguments from the opposition is not a new feature, but it must be said that the argument here is this – should other people be compelled to partake in your gender identity? The answer, if we value a free society, is no.
Consider the case of religion. I am free to believe in Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha – I am not, however, free to compel you to believe in any of the aforementioned religious deities.
Same with gender religious beliefs. If you think that wearing a dress and heels and feeling like a woman makes you a woman go right ahead. I should be under no pressure whatsoever to not believe the claim that wearing a dress and heels and ‘feeling like’ a woman turns you into an adult human female.
Hmm. Well we should look at Stonewall’s materials and judge for ourselves.
So, we can assume the claim that Stonewall’s claims, at the very least, require more scrutiny as their veracity of purpose is in question.
The era of ‘no debate’ is over. These questions are necessary to gain clarity and understanding of how gender self id legislation and gender ideology affects society and more specifically women.
Rigorous discussion and debate is a necessary requirement of any proposition that affects multiple stakeholders in society.
The power to make decisions in society must remain primarily in the hands of a democratically elected government. In private hands, there is only one concern, and that is the bottom line. We have too much ‘bottom line’ directed policy as it is.
“There’s a striking difference between physicists and economists. Physicists don’t say, hey, let’s try an experiment that might destroy the world, because it would be interesting to see what would happen. But economists do that. On the basis of neoclassical theories, they instituted a major revolution in world affairs in the early 1980s that took off with Carter, and accelerated with Reagan and Thatcher. Given the power of the United States compared with the rest of the world, the neoliberal assault, a major experiment in economic theory, had a devastating result. It didn’t take a genius to figure it out. Their motto has been, “Government is the problem.”
That doesn’t mean you eliminate decisions; it just means you transfer them. Decisions still have to be made. If they’re not made by government, which is, in a limited way, under popular influence, they will be made by concentrations of private power, which have no accountability to the public. And following the Friedman instructions, have no responsibility to the society that gave them the gift of incorporation. They have only the imperative of self-enrichment.
Margaret Thatcher then comes along and says there is no such thing as society, just atomized individuals who are somehow managing in the market. Of course, there is a small footnote that she didn’t bother to add: for the rich and powerful, there is plenty of society. Organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, ALEC, all kinds of others. They get together, they defend themselves, and so on. There is plenty of society for them, just not for the rest of us. Most people have to face the ravages of the market. And, of course, the rich don’t. Corporations count on a powerful state to bail them out every time there’s some trouble. The rich have to have the powerful state — as well as its police powers — to be sure nobody gets in their way.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…