You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender’ tag.
Twitter usually isn’t the best place to find valuable insights into complex topics and ideas. I do like to be proven wrong though, and that was very much the case when I saw this thread by “H”. This person precisely identifies a several key points where the ideology of transgender has gone markedly afoul. Much has to do with the correspondence between their activism and narcissistic male entitlement.
Common threads do exist between feminism and the trans movement. The current focus though of putting the validation of (usually) men’s gender-delusions ahead of female rights makes progress in this area difficult at best.
One of the axis the transgender debate swirls around is access to washrooms and change-rooms. The argument from the TRA’s is simply this: A person should use the washroom of the gender (sex) they identify as. Please note I put the word sex in parenthesis there as it is one of huge linguistic obstacles in the argumentative form of the the debate, more on this aspect later (as in different post later).
The problems with this argument are multitudinous, but I hope to cover the main points of contention. Firstly the immutability of sex in the human species, secondly the effect of socialization on males and females, and thirdly the sex classes and how they interact in society.
It should go without saying, but yet it must be said – One cannot change their natal sex. Therefore it does not matter how many gendered stereotypical practices and mannerisms a man adopts, his quest to be a woman will never come to fruition. He shall always be male, despite whatever feelings of gender he happens to possess. Now certainly, given enough money and time under the plastic surgeon’s knife, a man can be made to look like a women, but looking like and being a woman reside in two completely different categories. Plus, there are no standards defining what a transwoman actually is and with proposed self-id laws all it takes is a simple declaration by man to say he is a woman. The potential for abusive males to use self-id to gain access to female only spaces is a clear and present danger to females in society.
Secondly from birth, males and females are treated differently by their parents, peers, and people in society. The patriarchal gender norms in which we are inculcated with do not magically get programed on day, but are a result of a constant exposure to a set of normative values, that by default, channel men into dominant positions and roles in society and women into submissive ones.
The life long exposure to this unequal gendered treatment is not forgotten with a simple declaration of gender. Thus, it is fairly common to see TRA’s being quite vocal and aggressive in their activism because as males they are used to their voices being heard the first time and their opinion actually mattering in social situations. So if the male socialization remains intact even after the nebulous transition process – whatever it may be – then the corrosive patriarchal attitudes toward women also remain intact, along with all the male behaviours (objectification, predation, et al). that necessitate female only spaces in the first place.
Thirdly, since we cannot change our sex class the assumptions of females regarding men identifying as women remain the same. Males are responsible for the vast majority of violence perpetrated against women in society, how they ‘identify’ with their gender is irrelevant to the safety of females. This reason alone is enough to preserve single sex spaces in society.
The twitter snip is just one facet of what men will say to justify the invasion of female spaces. The assertion Owen Jones make is risible from the start, because in most cases we can successfully identify members of the opposite sex. We’ve been doing it for thousands of years as it is part of the necessary task of keeping the species going. So no, no Genital Inspection Unit is necessary, men just need to keep out of female spaces.
I’m kinda sad that basic information needs to be reiterated. Gender is a toxic social construct that is harmful to women and men.
The solution is to get rid of gender stereotypes and let people be people with personalities. The end. It is that simple.
Bill C-8 as currently written is bad news for children and the female population of Canada.
“It is a mark of cruelty to use the law to force confused, dysphoric children and their parents to embrace the transition to a life of permanent hormone therapy, surgery and disillusion. Most dysphoric children, if granted the support and opportunity, will accept and regain comfort with their biology by the age of 18. On Twitter there are hundreds of people lamenting that they were allowed to take cross-sex hormones when they were confused and vulnerable children, brainwashed by websites like Buzzfeed and their own gender-confused culture. They ask: “Why was I allowed to do this to myself? How come no one older and wiser stopped me?” Their sorrow is palpable.
Bill C-8’s all-encompassing definition of “conversation therapy” interferes in the future happiness and lives of children. Once opposite-sex hormones have wreaked havoc on a young developing body, including causing lifelong sterility, there is no going back.
Good intentions are not enough to make for good law. Canadians appreciate the importance of helping children and teens navigate the challenges of modern social media, the hyper-sexualization in our culture, body image, sexual identity and other topics in this 21st century reality. Puberty is full of angst, confusion and turmoil for many teenagers. Canadians appreciate that compassionate, loving parents, along with medical and mental health professionals using evidence-based approaches, should not face jail time for working through these challenges. Parents and medical professionals should mobilize against the ideological and knee-jerk approach of Bill C-8.”
A handy reference guide to the inanity is arguing with those who espouse an inherently contradictory ideology. Thank you Womenarehuman.com.
“The conceptual distinction between male and female based on reproductive organization provides the only coherent way to classify the two sexes. Apart from that, all we have are stereotypes.
This shouldn’t be controversial. Sex is understood this way across sexually reproducing species. No one finds it particularly difficult—let alone controversial—to identify male and female members of the bovine species or the canine species. Farmers and breeders rely on this easy distinction for their livelihoods. It’s only recently, and only with respect to the human species, that the very concept of sex has become controversial.”
The only reason it is ‘controversial’ is the face that reality is colliding with male gender feelings, and thus said males are trying to change reality – distorting it through their own gendered lens.
“Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level. In other words, our physical organization for one of two functions in reproduction shapes us organically, from the beginning of life, at every level of our being.
Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex. They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other.
“Scientifically speaking, transgender men are not biological men and transgender women are not biological women. The claims to the contrary are not supported by a scintilla of scientific evidence,” explains Dr. Mayer.
Or, as Princeton philosopher Robert P. George put it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”
It is remarkable the gender madness has gotten this far.
bleatmop
The Intransigent One
Mystro
The Arbourist
Your opinions…