Thank you, Dr. Wright!! If the gender mafia had gotten their claws into me as a teen, I would have ended my life. I can't imagine the horror of being give hormones as a teen. Who's protecting the gay teens.
I hear this from so many people. I am so glad gender ideology was not normalized when I was young, otherwise I am sure many of my friends would have subjected their bodies to irreversible harm.
Most of my friends, me included escaped to San Francisco just in time to be wiped out by AIDS. I survived to tell my story. Those years have been erased by the queers.
As well, for the married men who were closeted gays, like my former husband, who saw so many deaths in the 1980s, the fantasy that "sex as a woman" with "straight men" is the Yellow Brick Road of long life is a fantasy they latched onto. We lived in Manhattan and were involved in the arts, where so many tragic stories overshadowed our friend group. Fortunately, I emerged negative the three times I was tested. He considers himself a "lesbian," married a much younger woman (who needed his finances) thus he's "safe." Until the 30 years on estrogen takes its toll.
Any man claiming to be a lesbian definitely belongs in a mental hospital and should be put on medications. I feel the same way about any woman who claims she’s a gay man. They’re unwelcome interlopers; their goal is to erase the sex binary. They should not be anywhere near impressionable teenagers.
I completely agree, except for the drugs. They are put on a lot of drugs when they "identify" for the affirming medical practitioners. I theorize that the SSRIs, that is Lexapro, Paxil, Prozac etc, which they are almost always put on along with suppressants for normal hormones and wrong sex hormones, are putting these patients into a dull fog of diminished feeling. I am puzzled as to why the recent rash of young adults "in transition" who commit suicide (an account called To Exulansic on FB is the best source of this info at the moment) are not studied for how often they are on high doses of SSRIs. I recommend gardening, daily walking routines, healthy sleep routines, nutritious eating and cognitive behavior therapy for patients expressing cross sex ideation. Of course the porn addictions and narcissism are compounding factors~
Right? These people talk about genocide, but there's nothing happening to trans people that is remotely like HIV. And that's a good thing, because the late 80s and early 90s were a horror show of deaths, about which these activists likely know very little.
They have erased the horrors of watching friends die from AIDS and a government that laughed about dead f*gs. These people deny the existence of biological sex and call homosexuality “transphobic. And have the nerve to say if wasn't for “trans women, gay men wouldn’t have their rights. Stay tuned, I’m focusing my Substack on LGB history, telling the stories of the real heroes. I subscribed to your Substack, pledging $8/ 8/Monthly.
Good pickup. I thought they were doing something like that. Nailed it.
Even hypospadias is on the spectrum by their argument. Instead of being a (not-so) simple congenital anomaly that a urologist tries to repair, it's a sign the baby isn't fully a male.
Again, it's fine to fight this on the scientific merits but the reason we are fighting about is not because anybody actually cares what the squash word "gender" means this week.
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been ruining children's brain and bone development
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been guaranteeing many of their child victims will never experience orgasm as adults
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been making sure fetishistic perverts have access to women and girls in vulnerable settings
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been placing rapists and serial killers in locked cells with the most abused women in our society
eyes on the prize at all times. We don't win when these monsters concede abstract arguments. We win when quite a few of them go to prison.
I agree and disagree. The justifications for these procedures does flow from a series of biological, medical and legal arguments. This is how they effectively convince judges to rule in their favor. So I believe it's important, as someone involved in shaping policy, to track how their arguments are evolving so we can anticipate their next moves and how to respond to them. There are many ways this ideology gets taken down, and one is doing the detailed work to undermine the premise of their entire endeavor. And yes, this may also include taking legal action against the doctors performing these procedures that may put some in prison. But to even get to that point we need to debunk their entire framework and expose it for the pseudoscience that it is, so that we can demonstrate their wrongdoing to the courts.
All fronts are good, I am not really trying to give you a hard time. I just remember how much they used to use a general tone of high dudgeon to suggest you were JUST TERRIBLE if you did not believe in their GenderMagick and how really successful it was in cowing people.
I think when we push back we should push back on the facts but also on morality, because as they concede on the facts they are trying to keep hold of the moral high ground about how it's kind, really, to do as they say. Their tone is: look at how graciously we paragons of virtue are willing to concede boring little facts about gametes to you lolloping drooling unsophisticated masses.
We need to push them on the moral grounds, as well --- they are not on high ground, they are in a bubbling methane swamp and we have to say so very forcefully.
These fights for possession of a word, sheesh. Gender now has so many meanings that I wonder if it's worth worrying about. So long as the meaning of sex is preserved I'd say they can play with gender to their heart's content. Fine, there are 53 genders ... but there are exactly two sexes. Oh, and they can't have man and woman either.
Wow, who knew - short old white woman is now a "gender". But apparently some days I am "male", when I repair fence or use my carpenter's tools, and some days I am "female" if I sew or do housework. My gender must be "chameleon"?
The self-involved, self-justifying self promotion of Roughgarden, et al, is just too obvious. If they were able to pick apart Piaget's 4 stages of child development, covering intellectual growth from reflexes to abstract thinking from birth to age 14, perhaps they'd have a case. Nope. No references to how the HHS webpage on Piaget is not relevant. No references to the mastery of Object Permanence and Conservation of Matter, which starts at about 4 years and is usually settled at age 7, when the myelinization of the brain and maturation of the optic nerves are complete. "Born in wrong body" and "felt since birth" just do not occur without experiences of trauma and indoctrination. Children imagine that which is not real all the time. Then they come back to reality, just like the character in Where the Wild Things Are--in time to have some dinner. "Gender" is not a logic to be mastered at some magical space/time in early life.
I have to get the chronicle article, interesting, good professional writing about the issues from you as always.
I myself would agree that the behavioral phenomenon is completely natural, and occurs widely in the animal kingdom.
Evolutionary biology, sociobiology, ethology, even game-theoretic views of biologist recognize it is natural and occurs widely.
Interestingly, animals don’t have gender, they have sex. The natural behavior is called sex mimicry.
When you attempt to label a human, natural, biologically-grounded behavior which is identical in all respects to the same animal behavior differently from the animal behavior, there must be an excellent reason.
They will not be able to come up with one, since of course the claimants aren’t aware of the history, they are “naive” to the theory.
The only possible argument is that humans aren’t animals which fails flat out.
Remove sexual reproduction entirely from the discussion, because the sex binary and related biology are irrelevant - this is a behavior.
Great post Dr. Colin Wright! And your other post Why There are Two Sexes should be studied in high school!
I am looking for a book on Human Anatomy and Physiology for a 12-14 yeas old. Just bought on Amazon a book on the subject. It sounds exactly as what I am looking for - Learn the Fundamentals of Human Anatomy and Physiology: Unlock The Secrets of Human Body by Emma Alexander, published in 2023. It covers a lot of territory but doesn’t have a chapter on Sex and Reproduction. Can you imagine a book on human anatomy without explaining a fundamental system of our body and differences between male and female?!
Can anyone recommend a good accessible book that does not shortchange the science? Thank you!
A quibble: "reclassifies masculine girls as boys and feminine boys as girls", these wordings are accepting of and reinforcing of stereotypes. I think it is ok for succcinctness in this article, but I would normally use a longer phrasing that does not include masculine and feminine to describe traits, behaviors, or preferences that are often associated with a particular sex.
It is correct to describe as masculine and feminine traits, behaviors, or preferences that are typically associated with a particular sex. And they are usually associated because they are inherent to men and women.
Preferences for the colors pink and light blue, for example, are usually associated for purely cultural reasons. But there is a whole series of traits and behaviors that evolved along with the entire "sexual reproductive package." For example, being sexually aroused by people of the opposite sex is an inherent sex trait. Having this trait favors reproduction, so this trait is part of our heritage. Being dominant is another trait—in this case, masculine—associated with sex, which played a role during evolution; therefore, it is part of the "package." A fondness for children is part of the feminine "package." This does not mean that there are no dominant women or men who love children. They are simply traits distributed bimodally, but with two poles. It's like height, a bimodal distribution with some men shorter than women and vice versa, some women taller than men. But the distribution, beyond the overlap, is clear; it's not random or arbitrary, like the assignment of pink and light blue. In conclusion: it's correct to say that there are traits, behaviors, or preferences typically associated with a particular sex.
In other words, stereotypes aren't simply random occurrences we should abandon.
And this doesn't deny the existence of people who don't conform to stereotypes, nor is it a statement about how people should behave. It's simply an acknowledgment of reality.
Exactly. Since the rise of PC, the left, and now the right, too, have been infected with this hypersensitivity to the natural use of language. A S above demonstrates this. He (or she) has nothing but good intentions but the sensitivity simply isn't needed. We all know perfectly well that playing with toy trucks is a 'masculine' trait, and we all know perfectly well that girls as well as boys will occasionally play with 'masculine' toys. So much could be achieved if everyone would simply relax a wee bit.
I am glad you agree and are aware that pink and blue is cultural. I do not agree that a fondness for children is "feminine". I understand your position, and reject that this word usage should occur in our society, in the way that you described it. I agree it is a trait associated or correlated with a sex, i don't agree that makes it appropriate to call the trait itself, nor the person exhibiting it, masculine or feminine.
I was wondering which publication would allow such garbage in an article. I thought it should be relegated to an opinion piece. However, after following the link, I see that it *is* labeled as an opinion piece. So fortunately the publisher did the right thing, not classifying it as either an article or as analysis. Garbage is ok in an opinion piece.
Thank you, Dr. Wright!! If the gender mafia had gotten their claws into me as a teen, I would have ended my life. I can't imagine the horror of being give hormones as a teen. Who's protecting the gay teens.
I hear this from so many people. I am so glad gender ideology was not normalized when I was young, otherwise I am sure many of my friends would have subjected their bodies to irreversible harm.
Most of my friends, me included escaped to San Francisco just in time to be wiped out by AIDS. I survived to tell my story. Those years have been erased by the queers.
As well, for the married men who were closeted gays, like my former husband, who saw so many deaths in the 1980s, the fantasy that "sex as a woman" with "straight men" is the Yellow Brick Road of long life is a fantasy they latched onto. We lived in Manhattan and were involved in the arts, where so many tragic stories overshadowed our friend group. Fortunately, I emerged negative the three times I was tested. He considers himself a "lesbian," married a much younger woman (who needed his finances) thus he's "safe." Until the 30 years on estrogen takes its toll.
Any man claiming to be a lesbian definitely belongs in a mental hospital and should be put on medications. I feel the same way about any woman who claims she’s a gay man. They’re unwelcome interlopers; their goal is to erase the sex binary. They should not be anywhere near impressionable teenagers.
I completely agree, except for the drugs. They are put on a lot of drugs when they "identify" for the affirming medical practitioners. I theorize that the SSRIs, that is Lexapro, Paxil, Prozac etc, which they are almost always put on along with suppressants for normal hormones and wrong sex hormones, are putting these patients into a dull fog of diminished feeling. I am puzzled as to why the recent rash of young adults "in transition" who commit suicide (an account called To Exulansic on FB is the best source of this info at the moment) are not studied for how often they are on high doses of SSRIs. I recommend gardening, daily walking routines, healthy sleep routines, nutritious eating and cognitive behavior therapy for patients expressing cross sex ideation. Of course the porn addictions and narcissism are compounding factors~
Right? These people talk about genocide, but there's nothing happening to trans people that is remotely like HIV. And that's a good thing, because the late 80s and early 90s were a horror show of deaths, about which these activists likely know very little.
They have erased the horrors of watching friends die from AIDS and a government that laughed about dead f*gs. These people deny the existence of biological sex and call homosexuality “transphobic. And have the nerve to say if wasn't for “trans women, gay men wouldn’t have their rights. Stay tuned, I’m focusing my Substack on LGB history, telling the stories of the real heroes. I subscribed to your Substack, pledging $8/ 8/Monthly.
Thank you, but I'm not even set up to accept money. I don't write often enough to justify charging anyone. I appreciate it, though!
Thank you Dr. Wright. Another excellent rebuttal.
Thank you for this essay.
These individuals will not desist....and if their new model fails, they will simply invent another one.
Good pickup. I thought they were doing something like that. Nailed it.
Even hypospadias is on the spectrum by their argument. Instead of being a (not-so) simple congenital anomaly that a urologist tries to repair, it's a sign the baby isn't fully a male.
Again, it's fine to fight this on the scientific merits but the reason we are fighting about is not because anybody actually cares what the squash word "gender" means this week.
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been ruining children's brain and bone development
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been guaranteeing many of their child victims will never experience orgasm as adults
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been making sure fetishistic perverts have access to women and girls in vulnerable settings
we are fighting because these grotesque soulless monsters have been placing rapists and serial killers in locked cells with the most abused women in our society
eyes on the prize at all times. We don't win when these monsters concede abstract arguments. We win when quite a few of them go to prison.
I agree and disagree. The justifications for these procedures does flow from a series of biological, medical and legal arguments. This is how they effectively convince judges to rule in their favor. So I believe it's important, as someone involved in shaping policy, to track how their arguments are evolving so we can anticipate their next moves and how to respond to them. There are many ways this ideology gets taken down, and one is doing the detailed work to undermine the premise of their entire endeavor. And yes, this may also include taking legal action against the doctors performing these procedures that may put some in prison. But to even get to that point we need to debunk their entire framework and expose it for the pseudoscience that it is, so that we can demonstrate their wrongdoing to the courts.
All fronts are good, I am not really trying to give you a hard time. I just remember how much they used to use a general tone of high dudgeon to suggest you were JUST TERRIBLE if you did not believe in their GenderMagick and how really successful it was in cowing people.
I think when we push back we should push back on the facts but also on morality, because as they concede on the facts they are trying to keep hold of the moral high ground about how it's kind, really, to do as they say. Their tone is: look at how graciously we paragons of virtue are willing to concede boring little facts about gametes to you lolloping drooling unsophisticated masses.
We need to push them on the moral grounds, as well --- they are not on high ground, they are in a bubbling methane swamp and we have to say so very forcefully.
These fights for possession of a word, sheesh. Gender now has so many meanings that I wonder if it's worth worrying about. So long as the meaning of sex is preserved I'd say they can play with gender to their heart's content. Fine, there are 53 genders ... but there are exactly two sexes. Oh, and they can't have man and woman either.
Wow, who knew - short old white woman is now a "gender". But apparently some days I am "male", when I repair fence or use my carpenter's tools, and some days I am "female" if I sew or do housework. My gender must be "chameleon"?
The self-involved, self-justifying self promotion of Roughgarden, et al, is just too obvious. If they were able to pick apart Piaget's 4 stages of child development, covering intellectual growth from reflexes to abstract thinking from birth to age 14, perhaps they'd have a case. Nope. No references to how the HHS webpage on Piaget is not relevant. No references to the mastery of Object Permanence and Conservation of Matter, which starts at about 4 years and is usually settled at age 7, when the myelinization of the brain and maturation of the optic nerves are complete. "Born in wrong body" and "felt since birth" just do not occur without experiences of trauma and indoctrination. Children imagine that which is not real all the time. Then they come back to reality, just like the character in Where the Wild Things Are--in time to have some dinner. "Gender" is not a logic to be mastered at some magical space/time in early life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I93mLny-Q0Q
I have to get the chronicle article, interesting, good professional writing about the issues from you as always.
I myself would agree that the behavioral phenomenon is completely natural, and occurs widely in the animal kingdom.
Evolutionary biology, sociobiology, ethology, even game-theoretic views of biologist recognize it is natural and occurs widely.
Interestingly, animals don’t have gender, they have sex. The natural behavior is called sex mimicry.
When you attempt to label a human, natural, biologically-grounded behavior which is identical in all respects to the same animal behavior differently from the animal behavior, there must be an excellent reason.
They will not be able to come up with one, since of course the claimants aren’t aware of the history, they are “naive” to the theory.
The only possible argument is that humans aren’t animals which fails flat out.
Remove sexual reproduction entirely from the discussion, because the sex binary and related biology are irrelevant - this is a behavior.
As a gay person, I can say, please do NOT put me under the "transgender umbrella." I'll just take the rain, thanks.
Great post Dr. Colin Wright! And your other post Why There are Two Sexes should be studied in high school!
I am looking for a book on Human Anatomy and Physiology for a 12-14 yeas old. Just bought on Amazon a book on the subject. It sounds exactly as what I am looking for - Learn the Fundamentals of Human Anatomy and Physiology: Unlock The Secrets of Human Body by Emma Alexander, published in 2023. It covers a lot of territory but doesn’t have a chapter on Sex and Reproduction. Can you imagine a book on human anatomy without explaining a fundamental system of our body and differences between male and female?!
Can anyone recommend a good accessible book that does not shortchange the science? Thank you!
A quibble: "reclassifies masculine girls as boys and feminine boys as girls", these wordings are accepting of and reinforcing of stereotypes. I think it is ok for succcinctness in this article, but I would normally use a longer phrasing that does not include masculine and feminine to describe traits, behaviors, or preferences that are often associated with a particular sex.
It is correct to describe as masculine and feminine traits, behaviors, or preferences that are typically associated with a particular sex. And they are usually associated because they are inherent to men and women.
Preferences for the colors pink and light blue, for example, are usually associated for purely cultural reasons. But there is a whole series of traits and behaviors that evolved along with the entire "sexual reproductive package." For example, being sexually aroused by people of the opposite sex is an inherent sex trait. Having this trait favors reproduction, so this trait is part of our heritage. Being dominant is another trait—in this case, masculine—associated with sex, which played a role during evolution; therefore, it is part of the "package." A fondness for children is part of the feminine "package." This does not mean that there are no dominant women or men who love children. They are simply traits distributed bimodally, but with two poles. It's like height, a bimodal distribution with some men shorter than women and vice versa, some women taller than men. But the distribution, beyond the overlap, is clear; it's not random or arbitrary, like the assignment of pink and light blue. In conclusion: it's correct to say that there are traits, behaviors, or preferences typically associated with a particular sex.
In other words, stereotypes aren't simply random occurrences we should abandon.
And this doesn't deny the existence of people who don't conform to stereotypes, nor is it a statement about how people should behave. It's simply an acknowledgment of reality.
Exactly. Since the rise of PC, the left, and now the right, too, have been infected with this hypersensitivity to the natural use of language. A S above demonstrates this. He (or she) has nothing but good intentions but the sensitivity simply isn't needed. We all know perfectly well that playing with toy trucks is a 'masculine' trait, and we all know perfectly well that girls as well as boys will occasionally play with 'masculine' toys. So much could be achieved if everyone would simply relax a wee bit.
I am glad you agree and are aware that pink and blue is cultural. I do not agree that a fondness for children is "feminine". I understand your position, and reject that this word usage should occur in our society, in the way that you described it. I agree it is a trait associated or correlated with a sex, i don't agree that makes it appropriate to call the trait itself, nor the person exhibiting it, masculine or feminine.
Yesterday I published some thoughts on the topic of gender. You can take a look at them.
https://cabrerae.substack.com/p/considerations-about-gender-and-gender
Did you send this to the chronicle? The people who need to hear it?
Guessing they said no.
I was wondering which publication would allow such garbage in an article. I thought it should be relegated to an opinion piece. However, after following the link, I see that it *is* labeled as an opinion piece. So fortunately the publisher did the right thing, not classifying it as either an article or as analysis. Garbage is ok in an opinion piece.