110 Comments

Anyone "distressed" by this article needs serious mental health therapy, not being indulged by taking the article down.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, most "serious mental health therapy" involves calling men who ideate a female persona as if they are actually female. The field is completely captured.

Expand full comment

This article isn't even that bad.

"Gender" has no application to humans; that's why nobody can define it.

What does "role" mean here? How is "gender affirming care" about roles when it involves hormones and surgery? How does one build an identity on a role? This means nothing.

If you mean stereotypes or clothing or hair, say so. That's not a "role."

"Trans" does not exist.

End of story.

Expand full comment

It’s still wearying how this article uses the language of transgenderism, even as it is trying to be critical of this ideology. Example “trans” (trans identifying) “non binary” (there is no such thing) “trans women” (trans identifying male). These terms are highly contested, and if we use them without quotation marks, we have unwittingly drunk the cool aid and are helping to normalise these concepts as uncontested fact, which they are not.

Expand full comment

I agree. I always try to remember to use quotation marks with the "gender bender" terms, since from the very beginning of this madness I felt "their" terms to be utter ridiculousness.

Expand full comment

Yes, which shows how bamboozled we have become! Nevertheless, the article is a good response to the dangerous ideology of trans!

Expand full comment

@Mumbum remember the truth is never transphobic …

Expand full comment

I was just coming to comment that very thing, including that he refers to Kat as "they." Congratulations, you just made a point for HER. O.o

Expand full comment

“A woman is whoever she says she is.” There is a serious problem with the grammar of this sentence. The person wanted to say that anyone who says they are a woman is, in fact, a woman, but they ended up saying something entirely different. Their incapacity to construct a correct sentence is not a mere detail, but it's a reflection of their lack of logic and needs to be discussed. In its current shape, the sentence quoted above means that if woman X says that she is Claire she is, indeed, Claire. But if the woman is not really called Claire, that is called identity theft. Clearly, the author of that sentence didn't mean to say that X is Claire or Maria or "whoever she says she is." What he meant is the reverse: if X (whoever) says they are a woman, then X (whoever) is a woman. The logic/grammar of the sentence is upside-down. Again, that is not a mere detail, it symbolizes the upside-down logic of the entire trans debate.

Expand full comment

In the sprawling realms of Critical Theory and all of its offshoots (including queer theory), "deconstruction" figures prominently in the apparatus of the "cultural critic."

Deconstruction is an indispensable toolset for the practitioner of critical theory. While it's almost impossible to summarize deconstruction in a few words, I will say this: it views the history of the world as text, and it considers that text to represent any and all normative power structures. The cultural critic must therefore deconstruct this text and thus the world. "Text" is not just written language. It is also any form of representation.

As it turns out, the best way to engage with deconstruction is to use its own tools against it. In other words, it is susceptible to its own deconstruction.

Deconstruction is deeply adverse to the fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Why? Because they are seen as tools used by existing power structures to maintain those structures.

Expand full comment

There is no logic whatsoever in the trans ideology. It is an ideology built on a straw house of lies that are obvious to anyone, even young children! That is what makes them so strident.. and so defensive… they know deep down that their ideology is false , and that their strawhouse can be blown down with the slightest breeze of truth.

Expand full comment

I think the intended sense (if it makes any sense!) that Grant wanted to convey, is this:

Whoever says (s)he is a woman, is a woman.

The original refers only to women as the initial state, and implies that their declared state can be anything—an elephant, a cactus. It is truly an example of woolly thinking reflected in inexact speech.

Expand full comment

Instead of “follow the science” the Gender-Benders rather “befoul the science!”

Expand full comment

Yeah, TRAs are not following the science, they are twisting the arm of the science to follow them.

Expand full comment

Seen this already and glad that you, Colin, are publishing it on your site as well.

Expand full comment

Great piece. I find the aggression of trans activists, especially the men, frightening.

Expand full comment

Indeed. The debate spilled over to another blog called The Friendly Atheist where anyone not agreeing with “trans women are women” was savagely attacked. Strong misogynist tone.

https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/atheist-group-faces-backlash-after

Read the comments!

Expand full comment

Yes, I read the comments of these” friendly”atheists! About as friendly as a rattlesnake.

Expand full comment

They know most women are too frightened to challenge them in our spaces, and they claim that is support. But it is fear.

Expand full comment

I followed your advice, and discovered a cesspool of hate and toxicity to the max.

Expand full comment

Wow. Years ago I listened to the Friendly Atheist podcast. This was before I woke up to harm being caused by leftist ideology. Going back and reading the articles and comments is a real eye opener. Thanks for sharing the link. I’ve had enough of Mr. Mehta.

Expand full comment

I agree! The trans activists are every bit as authoritarian as the former Brownshirts.

Expand full comment

Transphobe? Damn yes! What sane woman isn't afraid of the likes of Dana Rivers, Karol Fisher, Yesenia Patino, Tremaine Carroll, Nikki Secondino and the thousands other 'roid enraged men trying to impersonate women??

Expand full comment

And as well, Keir Anderson, who strangled his wife, Jennifer, to death when she was trying to leave the newly "polyamourous, female-ideating" husband and father of their 2 young daughters. He's serving 25 to life in the women's prison (Chowchilla?) in California and has the privilege of broadcasting a podcast called Ear Hustle. The Left will rationalize any old murderer to prove they're not "traditional" or heavens forfend, "conservative."

Expand full comment

"No other concept of sex has such universality and utility." - I am so glad the author brings up this point. Science is not static or infallible, but if you want to subvert existing science then your new concept(s) needs to show better utility. What does better utility mean? I really like how King Crocoduct's Operational Criteria: Predictive Accuracy, explanatory efficiency, optimal flexibility, and rational coherence. If anyone has a better way to judge science, do let me know.

Expand full comment

If you are a trans woman there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.

That's it, just like me.

Expand full comment

The disturbing presence of Autogynephiliacs among the so-called Trans community isn't widely recognized and is cause for serious concern. Predators also thrive on ambiguity and specious ideology.

Expand full comment

Jerry, I take two issues with your article, not because you have gone too far against the gender crowd, but because you have not gone far enough. IMHO, biologists have given away too much ground to the outrageous claims of the transgenderists. It is time for you, as biologists, and we as laymen, to take back the lost ground.

——

My first complaint is that your article does not ground the word “sex” in reproduction. This is a consistent and profound oversight by biologists that I, frankly, don’t understand. It should be the first word out of your mouths. The word “sex” would not exist without reproduction. In biology there are only two types of reproduction: asexual (cloning) and sexual (the fusion of genetic material from two organisms to create a new organism). That sexual reproduction evolved and then flourished has always been a profound fascination for me. Why was it much more successful for higher life forms than cloning, and why did the joining of DNA stop at the fusion of only two organisms?

I think I know the answer: math, or more specifically probability. In a system of continuous reproduction that occurs over time with one entity eating the other, sex will evolve because it is the most efficiently form of reproduction in an evolving world. We could probably build a computer simulation that looks like PAC-Man to prove it. Mathematical probability is at the heart of evolution. I would even go so far as to speculate that if life exists beyond our planet — and I don’t understand why it would not if the laws of physics and chemistry are consistent throughout — then sex would evolve elsewhere too.

This concept of joining two things to create a third has profound implications for the debate we are now having. The point about gametes being the basis of sex is correct but it seems to miss the more subtle point about the mathematical probability of two DNA strands, and only two, joining for reproduction. The sex binary, it seems to me, is grounded in mathematical probability. The concept of the sex spectrum is not.

——-

My second complaint revolves around your giving up the word “gender”. The word “sex” is problematic. It has three meanings:

1) The fusion of genetic material from two organisms to create a third.

2) The act of copulation.

3) A reference to the two types of parties in anisogamous sex.

Having three definitions becomes confusing for language. People do not always understand what one is talking about. As a result, it became necessary to generate new words to distinguish the definitions. It is this third definition that gave rise to the word “gender”. Indeed, if you look at the Webster dictionary from 1828 to about 1955, the word “gender” was defined as “a sex, male or female”. It was only in the 1950s with John Money using the word to describe something different that the dictionary definition began to change.

Governments put the word “gender” into law when they were trying to reference the two sexes. This has become a problem over the past 30 years because “gender” has taken on a new meaning. Laws that were written with one meaning in mind are being interpreted with the new meaning. It is the establishment of law by stealth.

We should have never given up the word “gender”. We should now fight to regain it. Gender is not a feeling. It references two sexes. The concept of transgenderism is as fake as the concept of transsexualism. Just as it is biologically impossible to change one’s sex, it is biologically impossible to change one’s gender. If we want to talk about people changing how they feel about themselves, use a new word to more accurately describes it: “Fauxgender”, as Ruskin Lines has proposed. Whatever word we want to use, we should refuse to allow anyone to say they have changed their gender. It is biologically impossible.

Those are my beefs with your paper. Otherwise, it is pretty good.

Keep up the fight!

Expand full comment

I'm working with a group that has written a US federal bill to reclaim the language that is now being used by gender ideologues as well as state and federal government to destroy our rights. While many on the left want to convince people to stop using specific words and phrases (“No one is nonbinary! Stop saying that.”), we have taken a more proactive approach to define them in a way that destabilizes the power they wield.

Yet even in this excellent article I see definitions that contradict ours. For instance, we define sex as you do, but we call a human egg an ova while you say ova is a term for a female gamete in plants, not animals. It would be helpful if you would contact us to review our definitions and see if you will support them if and when this becomes federal law.

We're very short on time as we try to get both Democrats and Republicans to consider our bill before Trump enters the fray and muddies the water with a poorly thought out presidential signing statement. Just as Republican attorneys general went to federal courts to obtain injunctions against Biden's reversal of Title IX, Democratic-led states will do the same against Trump's action. Girls in blue states will continue to be battered emotionally and physically by male athletes and children will continue to be taught unscientific gender ideology in schools and set on a path of increased distress, divisiveness, destruction of their bodies and of course, sterilization. In two years, Dems will use this issue again to retake the House of Representatives and in four years to take the presidency and flip Trump's signing statement.

All of this can be avoided if we get ahead of Trump and offer him the opportunity to go down in history as the man who stopped the destruction of sex-based rights. We will create a broad based coalition of people who can pressure elected Democrats as well as Repubs and Independents to implement this solution to make it harder for Dems to reverse it down the road. UK readers, I hope you take a similar approach. Perhaps you should also establish the right to free speech similar to our First Amendment and maybe back that up with the revolutionary concept of our 2nd Amendment...

If you want to be involved, please contact me via Substack messaging.

Expand full comment

This is genius. Surely there’s a way a population can hold government accountable for failing to act with integrity/ allowing the promotion of untruths/ publicly endorsing and funding the promotion of political ideology through all OUR public institutions! It’s absolutely against the public service Act, and it actively undermines democracy.

Expand full comment

Very well stated. One follow-up: I would go even further with your point #2 (or perhaps just rephrase it). The concept of gender is meaningless in this context. We should fight not to regain it, but to eliminate it.

Behavior arises from biology. Behavior *is* biology.

For example, behaviors associated with the male "gender role" in every culture -- aggression, violence, dominance -- are the result of patterns of neuronal firing in the brain, which are, in turn, the result of the interaction between genes and the environment from conception onward, which in turn is the result of millennia of evolution.

The layperson's use of the terms "psychology" and "biology" is confused. It's all biology.

Expand full comment

Of course the decision to change “sex” to “gender” is a deliberate strategy by TRA’s to open the gates to their next steps- to embed transgender ideology into all public institutions, which they have done under the sly guise of “diversity and inclusion”consultancy / advisory agencies to government.

Expand full comment

Parthenogenically reproducing animals are still sexed, and in many species can also reproduce sexually. And unlike most bacterial reproduction, parthenogenesis doesn't always yield exact genetic copies (minus the variation of spontaneous mutation), as this depends on the type of parthenogenesis.

There are also apparently cases where sexual reproduction leads to a genome that is fully from the mother or fully from the father. We see this in ourselves with respect to the mitochondrial genome (barring rare events). And [1]: "In ‘gynogenetic’ species, such as the crucian carp5, female progeny develop from eggs fertilized by sperm from another species. The eggs are activated, but the heterospecific sperm’s genome is not incorporated into that of the offspring. Conversely, progeny in ‘androgenetic’ species have paternally derived genomes, again by exploiting gametes from the opposite sex6."

Keep It Simple so that it is most general; Don't gild the lily. There's no need to bring in the even more messy issue of reproduction when gametes alone are good enough.

[1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982223009946

Expand full comment

The only good criticism I’ve seen of this - and it’s one I agree with - is the inappropriate use of statistics in the paragraph about people convicted of sexual abuse. The paragraph shifts denominators from the sentence about prison populations to the claim about the general populations. This only works if the prison population is representative of the whole population. It’s otherwise a good piece, even if a few other things are under explained. He probably had a character limit to stick to though.

Expand full comment

YES. Jerry Coyne is my go-to read when I am asked a question on gender that I can't answer, so I am delighted to read him here, which is ANOTHER of my go-tos.

Like Coyne, I am a liberal, and in my view there's nothing liberal about gender woo-woo. It's unscientific, unempirical, dogmatic and a little anti-gay. So no thanks.

Expand full comment

"Gender may be “fluid” and culturally derived, but sex is real and immutable. No surgery/drugs/hormones, etc. can alter who we are born as. You cannot find an “authentic” life in artifice at any price. And women are sick of paying the price that the belief in gender ideology imposes on us. In the same way that women are not faulty “non-men”, men cannot share the embodied realities of growing up as a girl and developing into a woman who goes on to bear children that only she can optimally feed." https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/private-spaces

Expand full comment

Profoundly put: "You cannot find an “authentic” life in artifice at any price"

Expand full comment

Dear Kat Grant, enlighten a simpleton: is a female in a coma a woman or a non-binary person since she (oops,sorry - "they") cannot say who "they" are?

Expand full comment

There are also the dead people who have been claimed by gender activists as trans, such as Joan of Arc. Much more ancient skeletons have been unearthed which were easily sexed by archeologists. The gender activists argued that archeologists can't say whether these people were "women" or "men" because we don't know how they identified themselves. LOL!! Apparently these poor people will be suspended in the eternal limbo of the ungendered.

Expand full comment

Gender activist will say anything and spout the most ridiculous lies to back up their ideology, which is based completely on lies.

Expand full comment

Hahaha

Expand full comment

Such a weird argument for this particular organization to make. I bet it’s quite distressing for one to lose their faith in a higher power. Does that mean articles arguing against the existence of God should be excised from their website?

Expand full comment

You wonder: what on earth does this topic have to do with atheism?

I think they associate a total anti-trans attitude with religious people. They then go from there to saying that atheists must thus accept the most radical pro-trans take: trans women are women and must be allowed in women’s sports and other spaces. If you don’t agree you’re a nasty transphobe.

Expand full comment

To go along with the trans religion and claim you’re a friendly atheist is counter to reality.

Expand full comment

When I was in college the human genome project had finished a few years prior and genetic testing was becoming widespread. I remember wondering what this new way of illuminating our family histories might do for people, a new tool for exploring who we are. Never did I imagine that society would loop around to arguing over basic biological truths.

Expand full comment

'Nevertheless, nobody talks about a “spectrum of digit number.”'

Not yet.

Expand full comment