You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.
This is the madness that parents and sane teachers are up against. Read and learn so you can pick apart their bullshite and get to the truth.
Go to Colin Wright’s Substack for the full essay.
Question: How are the terms “man” and “woman” and “boy” and “girl” defined?
Kyle: “Oh wow, this question is going to be difficult to answer ‘cause it’s a bit philosophical.”
Jessie then answers:
Well that’s a great question. So I did an undergrad and a masters in Gender Studies, and like, I don‘t know if I could even tell you that, right? Like, because part of it, it’s, you cannot get away from social constructionism and language. So we define these terms based on many different things, but they’re always defined by the current context in which we live, like culture, time, all of these pieces, right? I think, and in that, we also define it by things like hormones, and things like anatomy, right? It’s like, how do we decide, um, you know, when we assign somebody male or female at birth, what is that based on? That’s based on anatomy, right? But there’s actually so many things, um, that are, that we’re not kind of looking at, right? That we also have to take into account. So, I mean, I honestly can’t answer those questions.
Um, you know, it’s, when we talk about gender identity, right, people, uh, say like ‘How do you know you’re trans?’ kind of almost like ‘How do you know you’re gay?’ It’s like, how do you know you’re straight? Right? It’s just kind of like, it’s often times like an internal feeling, but we define these things in terms of like biological factors, social factors, psychological factors, um, and they change from, like, different eras, different centuries, and mean different things at different times. I don’t know, that’s a hard one.
You read that correctly: Jessie did both an undergrad degree and completed a masters degree in Gender Studies, yet cannot even provide definitions for the two “genders” that children are identifying with and away from that serve as the basis for removing and modifying their body parts.
Kyle then adds:
We spoke a bit earlier about this idea of like labels and alphabet soup, and sometimes I think like yeah, these ideas of what is man and what is woman, what is boy what is girl? They’re just like arbitrary words to describe, you know, experiences and labels to put on people. And like who really knows what it means to be man, to be woman, to be masculine, to be feminine? I think it is what you say it is.
If “man” and “woman” and “boy” and “girl” are indeed only “arbitrary words to describe experiences,” then how can we possibly justify any medical interventions for children describing themselves in these terms? This concern leads to my next question.
Question: If we can’t understand these concepts, why do we think children can grasp them?
Kyle responds that’s because the real experts are the children themselves!
I think that we need to give way more credit like, when I’m, as I said when I’ve run these workshops it’s like students who are the ones being like “We don’t care that you’re trans and telling your story because, like, that’s fine, you be you.” I get asked so many times “Why were people ever mean to you for being trans? Like, it’s just you.” And it’s like, yeah, they get it way more, like I think it’s the unraveling that we are doing presently, the peeling of the onion, has already happened for them. They’re there with this fresh onion already, like crying away and being like “Cool,” like this radical acceptance of like this is how things are, and it is like an unlearning that has already been happening, um, and so we’re catching up, I think.
Jessie echoes Kyle’s sentiment about how children are the true experts because they’ve yet to be corrupted by socialization, whereas adults are perpetually engaged in a “process of unlearning” their biases, phobias, and preconceptions about what it means to be a man or woman.
These are challenging ideas, and we can get into philosophy and all these things, but you have to remember the way that we were all socially kind of, like, you know, taught about these concepts, and so we’re very much in a process of unlearning, where you know, there’s almost like a simplicity to kids, right? Like around, um, just being who they are, and being accepting, and loving of themselves and other people, and then, you know, and then bias kind of comes into play, and a lot of hat is taught, actually.
Excellent Summary.
Exhibit A: The Truth Matters
My fundamental right to assert the truth is the hill I am willing to die on. Here are some fundamental facts I will continue to assert because words have meanings and meanings matter:
· A “woman” is an adult human female.
· “Trans women” are not women. “Trans women” are trans-identifying males.
· A “man” is an adult human male. “Trans man” is a misleading oxymoron.
· Refusing to use misleading terminology to refer to trans people is not an expression of “hatred.”
· “Transphobia” cannot credibly be attributed to women because “phobia” means irrational fear. Female fear of male violence is perfectly rational because males are statistically significantly bigger, stronger and more prone to violence than females, particularly sexual violence.
Exhibit B: The Free Speech Argument.
Jordan Peterson was absolutely right that compelled speech is unacceptable. We have long accepted that threats of…
View original post 1,090 more words
Some story-makers engage in “retconning” – making new stories continuous with old ones by changing elements of the old one retrospectively. Famously – at least, for people my age and older – in the soap opera Dallas the character Bobby, previously killed off, was brought back a whole series later, alive, with the explanation that it had all been a dream while he was in the shower.
In transactivism, a form of retconning takes place all the time, as a further means of producing convincing back stories for current fictions. So much of the transactivist story-world depends on trans people having been a permanent feature of human life throughout history, no matter what the surrounding cultural or historical context. And so we find the retrospective fictional transing of notable sex-non-conforming figures from history: for instance, Marsha P. Johnson; Ewan Forbes; James Barry; Joan of Arc; Queen Hatshepsut; Kurt Cobain. We also get the creative reinterpretation of other cultural traditions, with the Hijra, Fa’afafine, Fakaleitī, and Kathoey people all anomalously represented under the essentially Western, relatively modern concept of “trans”.
And then, of course, we also get the fiction of the “trans” child – the most audacious retcon of them all. Transwomen who are “women” must once have been “girls”, and transmen who are “men” must once have been “boys” – which, by extrapolation, means that there must be “girls” in the population of male children, and “boys” in the population of female children, right now. “Trans” children (so often female, but never mind about that) “know who they are”, and should have the “freedom to be themselves”, we are told; yet this “freedom” may well involve a child’s taking drugs that will make her infertile; or give her premature osteoporosis; or bring about the surgical removal of her breasts, ovaries, and womb before she’s had any chance to reflect on the implications. Thousands of children and teens worldwide have been encouraged by adults to thoroughly immerse themselves in this fiction – indeed, to start believing in it, full stop – instead of treating it as one make-believe game among many, as part of a healthy development. Children’s bodies are being used as props in adult dramas they have no way of properly understanding until it’s too late for them.
A must watch for parents with question about the social contagion that can do so much harm to their children.
Streaming now at https://runawayplanetpictures.vhx.tv/…
Cultural constructs are subject to change. The swirling vortex of negativity and disruption caused by the idea of ‘being trans’ is long overdue for an overhaul. Go read the rest of ‘s article on her substack.
“It matters because if we were to really, really understand that our 21st century Western version of “being trans” is something we made up culturally, the rest of the debates on this topic fall away into nonsense.
For example, at what age can someone decide to remove their healthy breasts? At no age, really, should society sanction surgery — and the complications and consequences of it — for removing healthy body parts for no medical reason. It’s stupid, it’s unethical, it doesn’t solve a medical problem, and it creates medical problems in a certain number of people who have the surgery. There’s no value to it.
Another example: If “being trans” is a cultural creation, in what cases do we give really powerful, medically disruptive drugs to stop puberty in otherwise healthy adolescents? Duh, never.
If people are deeply distressed by their bodies, what should we offer them? We should offer them compassion, mental health services, support groups. We shouldn’t offer them “affirmation” that something is indeed wrong with them that needs to be fixed, because that’s simply false.
The outcome for gender noncomforming people is vastly different in a cultural context in which society treats them as if they’re A-ok and perfectly accepted and emotionally healthy and can be who they are (traditional Samoa) and a cultural context in which society treats them as if there’s something wrong that needs to be fixed or else they’ll kill themselves (21st century West).
The result in traditional Samoa was happy, functional people. The result in the 21st century West is miserable, fragile (and increasingly medically and emotionally damaged) people. Which outcome is better?
We completely, completely created this phenomenon of “being trans.” We can un-create it.”
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…