A car missing a couple of wheels is still a car, but defective. It hasn't transed itself into a bicycle!
A person with DSD is still male or female, but with a malfunction.
Even little kids know this stuff.
In a world that is burning, for the sake of profits, where tyrants thrive, wars rage & peoples starve, opinion replaces truth - how could Fuentes think this book was a good use of his time - or ours?
I enjoy philosophical writing style, great example, excellent read. In the style of a cat worrying a small animal before finishing it, finally dispatching the idea in the end without complex flourishes, snapping the neck.
What’s odd is that an “anthropologist” cannot recognize the behavior of humans performing what biologists call sexual mimicry.
Were he to actually look at animals closely he could see that it is a behavior in the Wrasse he seems to mention, in birds and reptiles, in cephalopods and insects. And man.
The behavior in humans, concealment of sex via sex mimicry, creates a morass of collateral behaviors. A pertinent example is human anthropologists, expertly bamboozled by the insistency of delusional mimicry by other humans, become incoherent speaking of sex.
And, subject to clear reason, the incoherency is worried, then the neck snap.
Your review seems to confirm exactly what I view is the problem.
Words like sex and gender, female and male, man and woman and genes, gametes, and genitals which from my perspective are clear are being made unclear by the vocal trans community.
A simple analogy is what happened with marriage. Marriage was indisputably a formal relationship (as defined by religion and government) between a man and a woman. It served societies purposes of creating a space for kids, the business relationship, and the community relationship. The LGB community pushed to include same sex relationships and defining them formally as marriage. Including reusing the words wife and husband.
I'm a married gay man. I support the need for marriage to be between same sexes to clarify the legal relationship that the government defined under the term marriage. The kid parts and the community parts are certainly different. The business parts are the goal. I would have preferred that the government get out of the business of defining marriage laws.
I'm unclear why redefining the term sex as it refers to biology - i.e. genes that typically results in gamete size and genitals is useful.
It's meaningful from my perspective to separate sex and gender as terms. Gender reveal parties are really sex reveal parties.
I don't believe using the word "binary" in the discussion is meaningful. Sex is chromosomes - mostly either XY or XX but variations happen including extra chromosomes. They are not binary - i.e. 0 or 1. They are also not a spectrum - i.e. like colors. There are specific chromosome variants that successfully produce a human with different traits.
For me, the title is ambiguous. Sex is clearly defined and neither a spectrum or binary. Its a range of well known variants with the 23 chromosome being XX and XY as the most common by far.
I also don't understand why relating animal's reproductive characteristics to humans is relevant.
Fuentes and the trans community would be better served by creating new terms. Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual were new terms to refer to sexual attraction. Gender has created a plethora of terms with male (him) and female (her) being the most common by far.
The only reason I can fathom that the trans community and researches like Fuentes are trying to redefine terms is that they are trying to appear as more normal. Why is normal so desirable?
Exactly right about the linguistic capture. This has been going on since the 1990s and I have proof in the sworn affidavits the PhD psychologist my then husband went to for the letters to take to surgeons, who later claimed that surgery, which made him into a eunuch, made him "legally female."
I like the subtle Macbeth reference at the end...I'll add what the Professor was too nice to say: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
I'll never understand this attribution of behavior to masculine or feminine. When I taught Kindergarten, I was the toughest, but kindest, teacher on the block. I did not have "dress up center" but rather Veterinarian Office, Space Station, Farmers Market and other non-dress, non-dolls themes. In the start of the year (thankfully no longer on the treadmill of Tuesday after Labor Day, retired in 2016!) I paired groups of boys and girls to work and play together. The research on early language acquisition in boys recommends they be with girls and benefit in vocabulary development. Girls learn to be a little less oversensitive. I come from a Wisconsin agricultural background; my maternal mother milked the cow and my paternal grandmother could drive the tractor. Both sets of grandparents partnered equally in the economic ventures on their land, as was necessary on most farms. Our bodies are ourselves, from the ground up.
Walk with both feet on this Mother Earth, wear what you like and what's practical. Please, no high heel gardening or hiking boots to "prove you're a male who thinks he's female!" If these men had to actually be pregnant for 9 months and give birth to tiny little sleep-depriving humans, they'd run for the hills!
My "female identified" ex husband never got up at night with our two sons, never did the natural labor I was fortunate enough be grateful for. As Dr. Patrick Laffert has said, these men are suffering from some other deep psychological wound and mutilating his genitals will not heal it. To the contrary, "affirmative care" will only create ill health, incontinence, and eventual regret. Renee Richards, one of the famous early "transitioners" told a friend of mine in his office as an eye care patient, that he regrets all of it. I have no degrees of separation from too many of these men and 1 degree of separation from too many more.
I once had a biology teacher who taught that a scientific theory is both testable and predictive. How would one test sex as spectrum, or what could it lead us to predict about the natural world? Hell, when I have asked proponents of SAS "Is sex in animals non-binary, too?" I get only demurrals and equivocations. This does not inspire confidence in that "theory."
Can the great philosopher explain why, in spite of sex *not* being binary, every human since the beginning of time has exactly two parents?
That bold statement doesn't sell books, I guess.
A car missing a couple of wheels is still a car, but defective. It hasn't transed itself into a bicycle!
A person with DSD is still male or female, but with a malfunction.
Even little kids know this stuff.
In a world that is burning, for the sake of profits, where tyrants thrive, wars rage & peoples starve, opinion replaces truth - how could Fuentes think this book was a good use of his time - or ours?
This is The Age Of The Death Of Reason...
I enjoy philosophical writing style, great example, excellent read. In the style of a cat worrying a small animal before finishing it, finally dispatching the idea in the end without complex flourishes, snapping the neck.
What’s odd is that an “anthropologist” cannot recognize the behavior of humans performing what biologists call sexual mimicry.
Were he to actually look at animals closely he could see that it is a behavior in the Wrasse he seems to mention, in birds and reptiles, in cephalopods and insects. And man.
The behavior in humans, concealment of sex via sex mimicry, creates a morass of collateral behaviors. A pertinent example is human anthropologists, expertly bamboozled by the insistency of delusional mimicry by other humans, become incoherent speaking of sex.
And, subject to clear reason, the incoherency is worried, then the neck snap.
Lovely.
It took me about three clicks to find unambiguous references to “male” and “female” in Professor Fuentes’ work from 20 years ago.
Always the case.
Thanks for the review.
Your review seems to confirm exactly what I view is the problem.
Words like sex and gender, female and male, man and woman and genes, gametes, and genitals which from my perspective are clear are being made unclear by the vocal trans community.
A simple analogy is what happened with marriage. Marriage was indisputably a formal relationship (as defined by religion and government) between a man and a woman. It served societies purposes of creating a space for kids, the business relationship, and the community relationship. The LGB community pushed to include same sex relationships and defining them formally as marriage. Including reusing the words wife and husband.
I'm a married gay man. I support the need for marriage to be between same sexes to clarify the legal relationship that the government defined under the term marriage. The kid parts and the community parts are certainly different. The business parts are the goal. I would have preferred that the government get out of the business of defining marriage laws.
I'm unclear why redefining the term sex as it refers to biology - i.e. genes that typically results in gamete size and genitals is useful.
It's meaningful from my perspective to separate sex and gender as terms. Gender reveal parties are really sex reveal parties.
I don't believe using the word "binary" in the discussion is meaningful. Sex is chromosomes - mostly either XY or XX but variations happen including extra chromosomes. They are not binary - i.e. 0 or 1. They are also not a spectrum - i.e. like colors. There are specific chromosome variants that successfully produce a human with different traits.
For me, the title is ambiguous. Sex is clearly defined and neither a spectrum or binary. Its a range of well known variants with the 23 chromosome being XX and XY as the most common by far.
I also don't understand why relating animal's reproductive characteristics to humans is relevant.
Fuentes and the trans community would be better served by creating new terms. Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual were new terms to refer to sexual attraction. Gender has created a plethora of terms with male (him) and female (her) being the most common by far.
The only reason I can fathom that the trans community and researches like Fuentes are trying to redefine terms is that they are trying to appear as more normal. Why is normal so desirable?
I think that all the arguments raised by gender ideologues are pushed for two reasons:
1. They want to pretend that people can change their biological sex.
2. They want to pretend that reality is created by human thought.
Exactly right about the linguistic capture. This has been going on since the 1990s and I have proof in the sworn affidavits the PhD psychologist my then husband went to for the letters to take to surgeons, who later claimed that surgery, which made him into a eunuch, made him "legally female."
I like the subtle Macbeth reference at the end...I'll add what the Professor was too nice to say: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Yes, yes and yes! And my now "female identified" ex husband used to quote that often!
I'll never understand this attribution of behavior to masculine or feminine. When I taught Kindergarten, I was the toughest, but kindest, teacher on the block. I did not have "dress up center" but rather Veterinarian Office, Space Station, Farmers Market and other non-dress, non-dolls themes. In the start of the year (thankfully no longer on the treadmill of Tuesday after Labor Day, retired in 2016!) I paired groups of boys and girls to work and play together. The research on early language acquisition in boys recommends they be with girls and benefit in vocabulary development. Girls learn to be a little less oversensitive. I come from a Wisconsin agricultural background; my maternal mother milked the cow and my paternal grandmother could drive the tractor. Both sets of grandparents partnered equally in the economic ventures on their land, as was necessary on most farms. Our bodies are ourselves, from the ground up.
Walk with both feet on this Mother Earth, wear what you like and what's practical. Please, no high heel gardening or hiking boots to "prove you're a male who thinks he's female!" If these men had to actually be pregnant for 9 months and give birth to tiny little sleep-depriving humans, they'd run for the hills!
My "female identified" ex husband never got up at night with our two sons, never did the natural labor I was fortunate enough be grateful for. As Dr. Patrick Laffert has said, these men are suffering from some other deep psychological wound and mutilating his genitals will not heal it. To the contrary, "affirmative care" will only create ill health, incontinence, and eventual regret. Renee Richards, one of the famous early "transitioners" told a friend of mine in his office as an eye care patient, that he regrets all of it. I have no degrees of separation from too many of these men and 1 degree of separation from too many more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5wNJ-O2hwA&t=969s
This is great, thanks.
I once had a biology teacher who taught that a scientific theory is both testable and predictive. How would one test sex as spectrum, or what could it lead us to predict about the natural world? Hell, when I have asked proponents of SAS "Is sex in animals non-binary, too?" I get only demurrals and equivocations. This does not inspire confidence in that "theory."