You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Transgender ideology’ tag.
The demands of people for you as a third party to partake in their gender-fantasy is not a reasonable one.
What other adults think and believe in society is not my responsibility. I believe that society should be based on verifiable facts, evinced arguments, and the willingness to be compromise on contentious issues. We’re all not going to get exactly what we want from society, but through negotiation and Reason, a middling solution must be found. The best way to interrogate the issues that we all face in the broader societal context is to have the ability to discuss social issues without fear in a nuanced and usually complex way. No topic should be off limits in a reasonable discussion – yet an entire class of unreasonable arguments seems to be off that table. Those arguments deal with the ideas of personal identity and how the individual and society is supposed to interact.
The problematic identities that are causing friction in society usually involve the nebulous concept of ‘gender’. Gender is the set of socially constructed beliefs and values that are associated with the two sexes of human beings in society. For instance, males are aggressive and good leaders, while females are compassionate and good care-givers are both examples of sex stereotypes (aka gender) that individuals in each sex class are saddled with. Society is constructed around the preservation of these stereotypes and in breaking them there is usually a negative social cost involved.
Feminists, during the second wave, sought to break down these gender stereotypes and move toward an understanding of gender as an often toxic construction of norms and ideas that shouldn’t necessarily be followed. Gender non-conforming behaviour was lauded as the way forward as individuals of both sexes should be able to access and embody the traits and values that were traditionally ‘not allowed’ for them. Women could be aggressive, powerful leaders while men could be caring nurturing and family orientated – and neither would face social censure for acting outside what was considered “normal” for their sex classes.
I consider the refutation of gender norms and gender non-conforming behaviour to be the way forward in society as individuals should be able to embody whatever sex stereotypical sets of behaviours that seem right for them.
All of this is based on the notion that gender is a set of sex stereotypical behaviours that have been arbitrarily (and some times coercively) assigned to the two human sexes.
The Transgender Identity movement we know today takes precisely the opposite view of sex stereotypes and how they should play out in society. Transgender ideology states that the act of performing and identifying with one set of sex stereotypes *makes* you that stereotype AND the physical sex associated with it. So for instance, a man who likes wearing high heels and dresses (both sex stereotypical clothing types) should be regarded as a ‘woman’ (adult human female). Because, in transgender ideology, adopting femininity and feminine affect is what makes women ‘women’.
To reality based feminists and most of the general population this is a preposterous notion. Human beings inhabit a sexual binary. We are either male or female for the most part. What makes a woman or a man is simply being male or female with all the associated physical characteristics. We are defined by the sex class we are born into – the set of stereotypes prescribed for us is based on natal sex. Second Wave feminism correctly identified gender as (usually harmful) sex-stereotypes and specifically rallied against the notion that to be a proper man or a woman one must follow the normative prescriptions of gender identity.
Transgender ideology flips this around and says that people who don’t associate with set of sex stereotypes that are assigned to them must then adopt the stereotypes of the opposite sex and through gender magic the individual ‘transitions’ to actually being the opposite sex. Thus, acting a male acting in a stereotypical female fashion ACTUALLY becomes female.
This is Grade A bonafide horseshit, but it is the tenet that lies at the very heart of transgenderism – by adopting they stereotypes of the opposite sex, you become that sex… Fundamentally, the notion is nonsensical and at odds with the physical reality we all share. But it is also here where the compelled speech becomes and issue for me and the rest of society. You see, correctly observing reality is looked at as harmful and abusive because it does not align with the transgender individuals internalized notion of gender and of which sex they are. The transgender movement argues that subjective feelings of individuals should override the rights of others in correctly identifying the physical reality that is before their very eyes. A male is woman because he has feminine feelings and because he says so, and to contradict his gender delusion is to be bigoted and transphobic.
In polite society, being a bigot or phobic carries serious social consequences which is precisely why the transgender movement subverted these social norms to comport with their inner feelings of gender and the protection thereof. Individuals in society must then carefully consider the social costs to disagreeing with transgender ideology which makes it harder to discuss and grapple with. Sometimes it’s just easier and safer to go along with the gender deluded individual despite the damage being done to free speech and allegiance to material reality in society. It is this chilling paradigm that I rally against.
If we value the liberal foundation that we have based our society on, transgender ideology and those who espouse it should not get a free pass. Transgender ideology must be debated, argued, and its merits and faults examined closely in society. Compelled speech to preserve gender-feelings that do not comport with reality is an unacceptable state of affairs. The current imposition of transgender ideology is a clear and present safeguarding issue to women and children in our society because men who identify as women are gaining access to single sex spaces based on their say-so and that, if we value the safety of children and women, is a problem.
When one takes time to examine the arguments put forward by the gender religious it quickly becomes obvious that past verbal intimidation and name calling, not many debatable points exist.
“That’s the way feminists have used the terms since the 1970s, as they challenged patriarchal claims that men’s domination and exploitation of women is “natural” because of biology. Patriarchy turns biological difference into social dominance. Feminists have long argued that gender is connected to our sex differences but is “socially constructed” in a way that reflects the unequal distribution of power between men and women over the past few thousand years. Anything socially constructed could be constructed differently through politics.
The trans movement flips that understanding, routinely asserting that gender is not the product of social forces but is a private internal state of being, which may be innate and immutable (opinions in the trans movement vary). In other words, transgender ideology asserts that gender is something one feels and has no necessary connection to one’s body and reproductive system. Trans activists routinely assert that “sex is a social construction,” that the biological distinctions of male and female are not objectively real but are created by societies. Stock painstakingly explains why this—again I’ll use the phrase, though it sounds harsh—doesn’t make sense.
In the preceding paragraph, I wrote “routinely assert” not only because there are differences of opinion within the transgender movement (which is to be expected in any movement) but because I have heard trans activists shift arguments when asked to defend a position (which is an indication of a weak argument in any movement). I once asked a trans activist, “If sex is socially constructed, that implies that it could be constructed in some other way. Do you know of any other way for humans to reproduce other than with an egg (produced by a female) and sperm (produced by a male)? By what means would human reproduction be socially constructed differently?” The activist offered no rebuttal to that, but simply dropped the claim, moving on to assert that trans people know what sex they “really” are and that any challenge to this idea was hateful and bigoted.”
This paucity of argumentative integrity has not stopped the gender-faithful from pushing their agenda and colonizing female spaces in society.
Stock also explains why allowing transwomen—again, males who identify as women—to participate in women’s sports will undermine and potentially eliminate sex-segregated activities that create opportunities for girls and women to thrive. Separate athletic competitions for males and females exist because of the physiological advantage males have over females, and those advantages don’t disappear by identifying as a woman.
Does any of this really matter? Well, it matters to teenage girls who may not want to change clothes in a locker room next to a boy who identifies as a girl. It matters to women at a health club that allows transwomen in a “women only” space. It matters to clients in a women’s homeless shelter that refuses to restrain sexually aggressive behavior of transwomen in order to be “inclusive.” It matters to the woman who is bumped from a country’s Olympic weightlifting team when a transwoman is allowed to compete as a woman. It matters to the women who were sexually assaulted by a transwoman who was housed in a women’s prison. It matters to the lesbians who choose not to date transwomen—because their sexual orientation is toward female humans and not male humans who identify as women—and are then called bigots and ostracized. And it matters to the woman who had to fight to get her job back after being fired for publicly stating that she believes “that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity.”
Trans activists’ responses to these challenges vary, but they can be reduced to a trans slogan so popular that an LGBT organization in the UKput it on a t-shirt: “Transwomen are women. Get over it!”
To say the least, the meaning of the statement “transwomen are women” is not obvious, either intuitively or logically. It’s a claim that many people find hard to understand, not because they are bigots but because it seems at odds with material reality. It would be more accurate to say: “Transwomen are transwomen, which raises many complex intellectual, political, and moral questions. Let’s work out solutions that respect everyone’s rights and interests!”
Not the catchiest slogan, but accurate and honest. It’s a t-shirt that I think Stock would endorse. She doesn’t condemn or mock trans people but rather seeks deeper understanding to make public policy choices as fair as possible for all.
The problem is that there has never been a public debate or a reasonable discussion of how we are in include the gender religious into society. It has always been ‘accept every demand, otherwise you are bigot!’. It has gotten them far, but at the expense of female rights, boundaries, and safety, which is clearly unacceptable in a society that values individuals rights and freedom.
It’s nice to see the gender religious arguments carefully examined, this cribbed from Peaktrans.org.
“Trans women are women and trans men are men”
“This is the core tenet of trans ideology and is the fundamental reason why transgenderism is problematic for women. I believe that if males were content to define themselves as transwomen rather than insisting they are “‘real’ women – as much as any cis woman is” (see below) and accept that, as transwomen, there will inevitably be limitations placed on their “womanhood” and the degree to which they can be accepted as women, then there would be much less impetus to fight back.
An article that appears on the website laughingly known as Everyday Feminism provides a wonderful illustration of the logical fallacy known as ‘begging the question’ – a form of circular reasoning where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.
Trans Women Are Real Women
There is a simple truth that a lot of folks, even allies (even queer and genderqueer ones!), tend to forget or misunderstand when thinking about how trans women are affected by privilege/oppression: We are “real” women – as much as any cis woman is.
And if we are women, that means we can not receive male privilege – because male privilege is by definition something that only men and masculine-identified people can experience.
To say trans women receive male privilege implies that we are partially male, or less female than cis women, or falsely female. All of the above are incorrect and offensive, because trans women are women.
No ifs, no ands, no buts!
This is so bad, it’s almost funny. Why waste so many words when you can just say: “trans women aren’t men because they’re women”? No need for explanations, reasoning or evidence – just suck it up.
To assert that transwomen are real women is nothing more than an opinion phrased as a slogan and one that, logically, makes no more sense than saying “pantomime horses are real horses”. Yet so many people think it’s enough to simply state it without any attempt to offer any reasoning – apart from circular reasoning as in the example above – and, if our reaction is to contradict it, we are deemed to be transphobic and should just shut the hell up.
In their dreams.
One advantage of this slogan is that it gives trans allies an easy way to practise what is known nowadays as ‘virtue signalling’, as well as an excuse to close down debate and shout down those who might embarrass them with rational counter-arguments.”
Obtaining definitional clarity when dealing with the gender religion (ists) is like trying to find the gills on a chicken. But let’s look at what Genevieve Gluck has to say about the straitjacket that is conformity to gender roles and the misogyny that goes along with it.
“Gender ideology represents the literal embodiment of male entitlement to women, and the sexualized power hierarchy that feminists once described as gender, or sex role stereotypes. This eroticization of power and powerlessness has the effect of naturalizing women’s subordinate role in society. When men perform a parody of femininity and claim this farce is what women truly are, they are fundamentally deconstructing women’s humanity, reducing half the human population to a demeaning and objectified fantasy; but crucially, they are redirecting women back to the restrictive roles that afforded them power over the female sex in the first place.
The belief that womanhood can be attained through a combination of desire reframed as devout suffering, alongside the purchasing of products — clothing, cosmetics, surgeries — is, at its core, a belief that women are commodities which men are entitled to possess. It is a belief system that attempts to define women as fetish objects and reduces women to the Freudian castrated male.
As Janice Raymond explained in her 1979 book The Transsexual Empire, the definition of the word “fetish” reveals the connections between religion, objectification, and a sadomasochistic sexuality:
“Webster’s Dictionary defines fetish in several ways: First, as an object believed among a primitive people to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly: a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence; an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion; an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression. Second, as a rite or cult of fetish worshipers. Third, fetish is simply defined as fixation.
From these definitions, it is clear that the process of fetishization has two sides: objectification, and what might be referred to as worship in the widest sense. Objectification is largely accomplished by a process of fragmentation. The fetish is the fragmented part taken away from the whole, or better, the fetish is seen to contain the whole. It represents an attempt to grasp the whole. For example, breasts and legs in our society are fetish objects containing the essence of femaleness. Thus the fetish contains and by containing controls.”
In decades past, the overwhelming majority of those claiming to suffer ‘gender dysphoria’, or a strong wish to inhabit the body of the opposite sex, were adult men with transvestic fetishism. These days, gender dysphoria is used broadly to refer not only to a male preoccupation with his status in society and the size or shape of his own genitalia, but to a discomfort with one’s sexed body in general. In this way, the male sexual practices of feminization and castration — whether surgical, chemical, or metaphorical — have been expanded to include women and children.
Feminists had previously initiated a societal conversation about the ways unrealistic beauty standards and objectification led to body image issues. However, now it is taboo to acknowledge that women and girls account for the vast majority of those diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorders, or to suggest that in women and girls, what is called ‘gender dysphoria’ may be a modern rebranding of the self-loathing and self-harm seen in anorexia and cutting.
The reasons that women and girls experience discomfort with their bodies are profoundly different from the ways adult men express their desires to become “sissy sluts”, to “grow boobs” or get “girl skin”, or to otherwise inhabit female bodies for the purpose of arousal at being treated like, and degraded as, a woman. Therefore, I propose that what is really meant by “inclusivity” is the forced integration of women and children into male fetishistic proclivities in order to normalize them. In this, women and children are being treated as collateral damage.”
Male violence (and the threat of male violence) still shapes women’s lives here in 21st century. We have not advanced past the stage of needing female only spaces and strong rules regarding the safeguarding of women and children from predatory men. The transgender idea of self – identification inserts a gigantic loophole into conventional safeguarding techniques thus rending safeguarding untenable and unsafe for women. Human beings cannot change sex and we should not as a society entertain legislation and legal fictions that promote this dangerous idea.
“I learned that predators don’t have ‘PREDATOR’ tattooed on their foreheads. They tend, at least to begin with, to resemble your next door neighbour or friendly uncle. They don’t announce themselves as perverted.They seem friendly, helpful and ever so keen to please, the kind of people who go out of their way to befriend, perhaps proffer little gifts, some pocket money, tell a few jokes, until there’s an uneasy reliance upon them, by which time it’s too late to back out because the hooks are in so far that they can’t be released without more damage, destruction, public shame and deep personal regret. Those men supplant themselves into the empty spaces previously occupied by ex partners or fathers or brothers, bringing salvation, which soon turns to coercion and pain, gaslighting and deflection. Some such men are upright citizens, not just famous disc jockeys and musicians, but teachers, foster carers, priests, Scout leaders, lawyers, judges, doctors, each and every walk of life in fact has predators with disordered minds. They encourage the keeping of secrets, for that secrecy, darkness and shade are essential to achieving their ends. They are not to be questioned in their motives, required to justify or explain what they do.
Some men frighten women; some men bully women; some men kill women; some men belittle and humiliate women and some men harm little girls. Some men get to little girls via their vulnerable mothers; some men get kicks prowling where they can and ambush women or their daughters. That is why women and girls have single-sex spaces, for safety, respect and dignity.
Men who batter or molest or terrorise their stepdaughters into silence don’t grass themselves off – they refer to the falls, the accidents, the self-inflicted injuries occurring strangely in odd circumstances as they babysat. And, offended, do the ‘who, me?’routine, indignant.
Women who are vulnerable and see their children abused by new partners don’t always manage to recognise or speak of what is right under their noses, they’re weakened, isolated, and scared – for some in such circumstances, escape, refuge or justice are for the birds – and were they to pluck up the courage to seek such aid, what they need are soothing understanding female voices who know the terror which comes from having the lighter, weaker, more vulnerable body, unable to fend off attack. Women fleeing violence, abuse, domestic terror inflicted upon them by men don’t deserve to be greeted at the door of a refuge by an intact male telling them to leave their ‘trans bigotry’ outside on the doorstep.
And women who have been brutalised might try to find a quiet cool breathing space in a public toilet in a supermarket where they can take a deep breath and stare into space for a few precious moments whilst fearing what lies ahead, moments to check a noticeboard for a helpline or just to sit in peace away from a boorish leering unwelcome advance.
Mothers in emergency treatment rooms getting shards of glass tweezered from the backs of their heads, or their cheeks, or having their lips or eyebrows decorated with butterfly strips don’t want those administrations provided by fat male fingers – those resemble the hard hands which punched and slapped hell into them.
Grannies in their twilight, scared and alone in hospital wards with varicose veins, hip replacements or hysterectomies don’t desire to wobble onto a bedpan in a nightgown in full view of a male bodied patient.
Teenage girls shouldn’t hide at home for embarrassment of having to use school toilets as boys listen to them rustling next door – we’re sending money to charities building toilets in Africa, for girls, so that girls can get educated, yet here in Scotland we are tearing those girls’ toilets down. Feminist to our fingertips we Scots are. Indeed, but perhaps only upon the international stage, not at the domestic hearth.
We know that the majority of female prisoners in Scotland are not locked up because of their violence, most having suffered trauma in childhood, usually at the hands of abusive men – yet these days women are required to share with transwomen – intact male bodies – with scant if any risk assessment and no regard to the views of the women – retraumatisation comprising cruel and degrading treatment – condoned by a female First Minister in a country whose justice system was once allegedly the envy of the civilised world.
So today in 2021 I am no longer a safeguarder – I left that job a few years ago. In the meantime though, there has been a new training regime instigated when safeguarders learn how to interview children and have to compete the ‘Enhanced Disclosure’ check – you fill in a form which I learned last week no longer asks for the applicant’s sex, but for the applicant’s gender – I don’t know why that is but I do know this – one day in Scotland we will see, as self-identification erodes the safe spaces and safe places women and girls need, that predators will access those places and lives of women and girls will be harmed and their safety jeopardised. Dignity, respect, choice, sex, not gender -‘these will all be tossed into the abyss by the SNP/Green government as they take ‘a leap of faith’ , in the name of progress. Back to the future and the loss of the gains our great grannies won 100 years ago. It is to Scotland’s shame, and my conscience won’t allow it. Will yours?”
Transgender ideology is rife with paradox. This is one of the more important aspects because it illustrates the friction between a supposedly liberating dogma and its actual effects.
Gender stereotypes are, for the most part, harmful for the women and men that follow them. Like the cartoon above – the stereotype is that dresses are worn by women. Well we all know that clothing for the most part, has no gender and can be worn by anyone. But men are ‘not supposed’ to wear dresses because they are for women – men will feel social pressure not to wear a dress because of the arbitrary gender stereotypes.
So what is transgender ideology to do when it argues that wearing a dress, in fact, makes you a woman. Transgender ideology reinforces the stereotypical notion of gendered clothing and who is allowed to wear what. It maintains the status quo and is no way revolutionary.
Contrast this with the gender abolitionist radical feminist position – Let’s dispense with the notion of gender stereotypes altogether and celebrate gender non conforming behaviour because clothes are for people – the end. A woman in a suit or a man in a dress are simply that, a female and a male with clothing that matches their personality and goals for the day. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
I’d just like to take a small bite of one of the problems that occurs when having discussions with people who believe in the current gender fad. Let’s start with the biggest fish on the plate – what is the definition of being ‘Transgendred’. This from Wikipedia:
“Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.[1][2][3] Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.[4][5]Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are non-binary or genderqueer, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender).[2][6][7] Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or else conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.[8][9] The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers.[10]
I stopped because I have no idea what a ‘gender identity’ is. So let’s define that.
“Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with a person’s assigned sex at birth or can differ from it.[2]Gender expression typically reflects a person’s gender identity, but this is not always the case.[3][4] While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity. “All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of a person’s self-identity in relation to other members of society.[6] In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females,[7] a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.[8] Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender assigned to their biological sex;[9] some of those people are transgender, non-binary, or genderqueer. Some societies have third gender categories.”
The first (of many) problems with these definitions is that they do not correspond to the reality we inhabit:
“Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth”
This most basic premise is wrong. Sex is not “assigned” at birth. Sex observed at birth as obstetricians in the vast majority of cases can easily categorize members of the male sex class and members of the female sex class. It is worthwhile at this juncture to note that human beings cannot change the sex that they were born with, simply stated:
Biological sex is immutable.
So we have to note that right from the start, one of the foundational premises of trans-ideology is fundamentally flawed. Any argument based on the premise that sex is assigned at birth will necessarily be false. But, of course, there is just more than one flawed premise in the mix.
“in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are non-binary or genderqueer, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender)“
It’s here that swirling morass of haphazard generalizations and faulty reasoning kick in. Gender identity is the ‘personal sense of one’s own gender’. What the hell does that actually mean? What is it like to experience the personal sense of one’s gender?
To be perfectly honest – I have no idea what it is like to experience my own gender. I know what it is like to be me, and my personality, but I have no intuitive sense of what my supposed gender identity is. Try it for yourself describe your ‘gender identity’ to yourself. Try it with this added challenge – describe your gender identity without using sex stereotypes. Here is a handy list you should avoid.
I’ll wait.
…
It would seem like the personal sense of one’s gender identity rests on the adoption of a particular set of negative sex stereotypes about the class of people you happen to be born into. That is what gender is; an arbitrary societally prescribed set of behaviours/expectations that are imposed on females and males in society. These social norms exist in society and are in no way present in human beings prior to social exposure. How do we know this? For instance we know that social gender norms change over time – the girl pink/boy blue situation was reversed or not present prior to the 1950’s. Thus, gender is something that is outside of us and we are exposed to it once we start interacting with society.
So how does one ‘identify’ with being female or male then, without resorting to the (mostly) negative sex stereotypes (a.k.a gender) that society imposes on people? Said another way, what does ‘feeling like’ a man or women feel like?
Sounds like nebulous bullshit to me.
“While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity. “All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of a person’s self-identity in relation to other members of society.“
We need to approach the idea of ‘identity’ with a great deal of caution because ‘identity’ is inherently subjective and thus unreliable as an indicator of correspondence to reality.
“In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females,[7] a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.[8] Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender assigned to their biological sex;“
This sentence conflates the personalities we all have with gender identity and gender stereotypes. You as an individual in society are not a gatekeeper for the gendered expectations that are rightly or wrongly, imposed on you. Most certainly you can defy them, a man wearing pink for instance or a woman being aggressive, but your personal identification is irrelevant to societal expectations. Nor does adopting the stereotypes of the other class of people make you a member of that class of people. A man wearing a dress is still a man.
Should it be okay if a man wants to wear a dress? Absolutely. It should be encouraged as gender non compliant behaviour illustrates the coercive and arbitrary nature of the system we know as ‘gender’.
What wearing a dress for a man does not do is make him a woman.
This is tip of the iceberg level of what is going on in the faux-progressive areas of society. Feelings and the subjectivity inherent within them are being lauded over the empirical reality we all share. The implications for females in our society are quite foreboding, but that is another post.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…