The transgender ideology attempts to compel speech for society as a whole. You must affirm their untrue beliefs or else be castigated. You *must* use the pronouns. This should be reason enough to oppose it, on moral grounds alone. It is not just speech policing--"don't say that," as in don't say racial slurs--it is compelled speech, as in "you must say this thing, even if you don't believe it." Anyone who cares about free speech should find this abhorrent and beyond the pale. I know free speech has become a bit of a meme these days, but a lot of people still at least pretend to care about it.
While your article is well taken and I don't disagree with anything in it, it does strike me how centered the conversation is around emotional concerns. The most effective counter-argument to transgenderism does appear to be invoking sympathy for those it impacts negatively, particularly women. But in a sane world, it would be enough for people to simply point out that it is a delusional denial of reality, and this would destroy the ideology even if no one were actually harmed by it.
So true. This ideology should be rejected for emotional, physical and biologic reasons. I agree with the focus on the emotional however because emotions were used to encourage otherwise intelligent people to deny reality. Perhaps an emotional appeal will lead them back to the truth.
I find there to be a tension between the two concepts of being intelligent on the one hand, and blinded by emotion on the other. If you can be lead astray so easily by emotional concerns, even into such heights of absurdity as believing that men can somehow be women, how intelligent were you really to begin with? Not very, in my estimation.
I think the reason emotional appeals always matter more than logic is that emotional intensity tends to be a decisive factor in social power struggles. If you are a business that simply wants to be left alone and go along to get along, you will by necessity kowtow to the loudest, most obnoxious, most emotionally extreme voices, as these are the people who will impose consequences if you cross them. Upsetting some reserved intellectual is unlikely to matter as he/she is unlikely to start harassing your business in response. But overly emotional trans activists who have tied their entire identity to the trans ideology? They'll go to extremely irrational lengths to hurt you if you become a target.
Another thing to throw into the mix, however, which explains how some intelligent people are easily conned. I have done a lot of research on the transgender disinformation campaign and discovered there were basic facts I was unaware of. Much time and effort was required to discern and confirm the facts. In discussion with many others especially those who support "gender affirming care" and all that entails, I realized they were clueless.
Many people have no time to do a deep dive and they rely on the little "news" they see. That "news" is curated to promote a narrative. It was only recently that conservative media began to tackle the subject in depth. Meanwhile this cancer has taken root everywhere in our society. Without independent research, these folks are unaware of what is going on in progressive states, in the classroom, on social media or in the surgeon's office. They would be shocked at the explosion of gender clinics since 2007 and have no idea what ROGD is. They haven't thought too deeply about what gender ideology even is. They are busy with their own lives. This makes them incredibly susceptible to the emotional appeal for "compassion".
Then add the incrementalism that has occurred with trans messaging. It is quite remarkable. The success of the trans "movement" should be an example of an incredibly well executed marketing campaign spanning decades.
Maybe I'm biased by having never really been much of a liberal myself, but I was able to discern perfectly well for myself that there were big problems with this ideology at first sight. Crossdressing is one thing (and was around long before "gender ideology"), but when I heard of the concept of "transgender surgery," whereby a man can somehow be given a functional vagina, I found it absurd right away. My instant reaction was that this is science-fiction levels of biological modification that are surely impossible in the real world. A cursory glance at the facts behind the narrative confirmed this suspicion, of course.
If you ever took this sort of claim seriously, then I don't know what else to say, you were simply ignorant. Maybe you are intelligent, but for whatever reason, you were very, very ignorant of very basic biological knowledge. The belief that surgery can create functional genitalia on people who were not born with them is straight up magical thinking. If you were ever convinced of this because CNN told you to believe it, then again, I have serious doubts about how intelligent you really are.
Anyways, putting all of that aside. You are of course completely correct that the trans phenomenon is an astonishing case study of just how powerful narrative control is, and this is a model that applies to most leftist beliefs generally, carefully constructed denials of basic reality that are enabled by the capture and subsequent wielding of supposed truth-telling institutions.
I had the same reaction as you initially and your logic is correct. The idea that we can actually change sex is completely absurd. I guess I am trying to find a way to understand how some of the folks I know are OK with what's going and how so many have allowed this to flourish. I guess the answer is that intelligence does not guarantee a person can actually think.
It's one thing for an adult who has gender identity disorder (which we know is a real thing for a tiny proportion of the population) to say I need to do the surgery to get through the day but I know I am still a man/woman. It is another thing entirely for that person to believe they have actually changed their sex. It's delusional and society should not enable it.
I think this derives from "intelligence" being too narrowly defined in our culture. We tend to think of intelligence as basically just meaning that you scored high on an IQ test which measures a certain kind of problem-solving. That is definitely one form of intelligence, but I would separate it from the ability to discern truth in conditions of social and moral uncertainty. It seems clear to me that some people are rich in one while sorely lacking in the other.
I prefer not to call someone intelligent if they lack this ability to discern truth, in part because being "intelligent" confers status in our society, and I believe people should not be rewarded with status if they show no ability to comprehend basic morality regardless of how high they may have scored on a test.
Another reason emotion matters more is due to self concept, how people wish to perceive themselves as compassionate and good and all that. How much do you ‘care’ for the marginalized and oppressed? Any appeal that turns on that will easily overwhelm facts and reason.
This is the key to the success the New Left has experienced in the past few decades since they established their beachhead in American academia.
They have captured morality (most esp for anyone remotely liberal) by identifying themselves w the oppressed and downtrodden, styling themselves as official Defenders of the Marginalized, and all flows from there.
This was helpful up to a decade ago, when it helped open society to more concern for black people, gay people, women (their Holy Trinity of Race Gender Sexuality). But in the intervening years—the introduction of smartphones and social media, the polarization of society, Social Justice becoming more and more the first purpose of culture & academia—tolerance has tipped over into socially enforced deference or celebration.
And the final factor, of course, is Trump. In the minds of people on Team Blue, Trump and the Republicans reek of nativism and bigotry and it has become absolutely socially unacceptable to even utter one word that may be construed as supporting them.
The section of society that controls the media, culture, academia etc refuses to even consider the sad tales of these families and the poor young people who have to experience "detransition": nothing matters more to them than tribal dogma and morality, which means there is ZERO chance of reasoning w them.
They have been trained and conditioned (much like cult indoctrination) that any word that comes from a "marginalized person" (even a child) is holy writ that must be worshipped and that only heretics would dare question.
As a colleague in the psychology field, I think that this essay is extremely thoughtful, very well reasoned, and precisely on target. I could not agree more. Sincerely, Frederick
Great work. We recently changed our name to the International Association for Dissident Mental Health Professionals. We are seeking managers for our divisions: https://nationalpsychotherapyassociation.weebly.com/.
Excellent essay, but it didn't go quite far enough. The impact of the "transgender" lie isn't limited to the nonsense the autogynephile billionaires have rammed down our throats today. It's the dystopian hell they've planned for us tomorrow.
One Yale doctor predicts that within the next ten years, the first baby gestated inside a transplanted uterus will be delivered by c-section from a man. And if the sperm used to fertilize the egg came from the same man, then that man would be both the biological father and the "birth mother" of the baby. Drs. Frankenstein and Mengele would be proud.
And where will the donor uteruses and eggs come from? From the surgical waste container of the "transgender" F2M teenagers who demand hysterectomies after their double mastectomies.
The very last paragraph of the article should send shivers of fear up and down your spine.
"The reproductive aspirations of M2F transgender women deserve equal consideration to those assigned female at birth and, subject to feasibility being shown in the suggested areas of research, it may be legally and ethically impermissible not to consider performing UTx in this population."
In other words, these oxymoronic "ethicists" believe men have just as much right to be "mothers" as women. So who needs women at all.
And that's just within the next ten years. So try to imagine what the next twenty or thirty years will bring. The artificial uterus, "biobag" is now under development. It's not too far fetched to think that one day babies will be born as nullos with no genitals at all. Because these babies will never need that kind of equipment anyway.
Back to the present. Two days ago, I went to pick up my beloved terrier mix dog from the grooming salon at PetSmart. The young woman, barely out of her teens, who helped was clearly under the influence of the "transgender" Svengalis.
She had a head full of green, blue and purple hair. A post mastectomy chest. And a sparse, stomach turning orange beard that covered only the underside of her chin. Her voice was filled with baritone gravel. Moreover her BMI was way up in the range of obesity because massive doses of testosterone can do that to a woman.
Of course with her petite height, her doe like eyes and her delicate hands, she ain't never gonna pass as any kind of man. And she's set herself up for a medicalized life filled with chronic illnesses and a shortened life expectancy. But hey, she's living her "authentic" life. So let's get out the glitter and throw her a parade.
The key question for the United States and the rest of the world is how long can we continue to have a functioning society when the population is brainwashed to believe deviancy should be "celebrated."
Well, it's not actually going to happen in the next ten years, or likely ever; gestation is just WAY too complicated and dependent on female biology, no matter what some fanatic at Yale says. But I agree that's it's a horrific idea, whether it ever happends or not.
Yes. It is horrific. And, like you, I hope it never happens. But several teams of researchers around the world are working on this now. So who knows. Perhaps Colin can shed some light on this.
A transplanted uterus is going to require long term anti-rejection drugs to prevent it being destroyed. Such drugs can complicate and damage a pregnancy, but I don't suppose the narcissism of the FrankenTrans will let them consider the extra risk to the fetus as important.
Whether it can technically ever be achieved or not - my feeling is that it is a simply astonishing waste of time, money and all other resources concerned. It's not as if our species is in any danger of ever running out if men cannot gestate.
Thank you for this well-reasoned article. It's hard for me to imagine that calmer and clearer heads are not approaching this as the dangerous issue it is. When you throw reality out the window for fantasy, sooner or later the fantasy ends and all you have left is broken people and lives. Accommodating peoples wishes and feelings cannot be a good enough reason to let the world slip into madness....
I agree, but in your first two paragraphs, I feel that you tacitly accept some of the nonsense. You do not put quotes around "gender affirming," and that phrase is such nonsense. And you say that transwomen are entering women's spaces. OK, that is true. BUT, it is also any man who claims to be a transwoman. Because we are supposed to accept the notion that sexual predators will not lie to gain access to fresh victims. As if!!!! Of course they will. A world where an apparent man in a womens' only space is less likely to be challenged will be more dangerous for women. Full stop. He could be a transwoman or he could be a predator waiting for an opportune moment. But we will not know until that moment arrives, because no one will ask, in a world where doing so is seen as anti-trans. And if someone does ask he can always claim to be a woman, really. The craziest is putting men in womens prisons, as it requires accepting the words of convicted male criminals that they are actually women. And gee, why would any man lie to get into a womens prison??
I think the definition of transwoman is any man who says he identifies as a woman. Once we embrace self-id, there is no distinction between "true trans" and "men who want to invade women's spaces."
They don't become women, but they do become transwomen. That is, they remove their male parts, add whatever female parts they can - and end up being, a transwoman. They do hormones that mimic female. It is different than being a man. It is different than being a woman. It is being trans - and they really are different than guys who don't do hormones, keep their male body and then say "I'm a woman". Those things are different. So, "true trans" in that context meant, they went the full nine yards to try to approximate a woman, though we agree that they cannot become one. The not "true trans" are men who have done nothing or minimal but claim the status of trans. I think it is important to differentiate between those two types of "trans" folks. One is; one isn't. Whatever you think of trans/ gender dysphoria issue, we need language to talk about these different sorts of folks.
But generally agree with your "we need language", an issue that too few seem willing to grapple with, largely because of prior commitments and emotional attachments. The words "male" and "female" have largely become content-free, and serve only as markers of tribal allegiance -- instead of labels for those with two types of quite transitory reproductive abilities.
More generally, the issue is what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as a woman. If just having a vagina -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof -- is sufficient then of course trans women are women. If it's a matter of functional ovaries being the necessary condition then menopausees don't qualify.
The wickets are getting rather "sticky" -- truth or consequences, a choice many seem desperate to avoid having to make.
See my post for some elaborations on those themes:
Chromosomes aren't what determine which sex we are, particularly since there are about a dozen different combinations of the X and Y just among humans:
In addition to which, many other species have entirely different chromosomes -- other than X & Y -- that still lead to the development of different sexes in those species:
Which is why the biological definitions use criteria other than chromosomes to qualify individuals as male or female, and which thereby apply to literally millions of other species. For example see the definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
The problem is the definition for "woman" and for "female".
Too many haven't a flaming clue that there's no intrinsic meaning to either of those words -- to any of our words in fact. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so there are NO definitions that qualify as gospel truth. The issue is only which definitions were going to agree qualify as trump.
And "woman" as "adult human female" is something of a poisoned chalice since, by the standard biological definitions, "women" get their "female" cards revoked at menopause.
A more useful definition is probably "adult human vagina-haver" but I rather doubt that most "women" will find that all that "palatable". "Vanity, vanity. All is vanity" saith the Preacher ...
See my post for some elaborations on those themes:
Proponents of these therapies say the detransition rate is very low , (I've read less than 1%) but can anyone provide the actual statistics? Is it possible to find out, or are detransitioners and "regretters" mostly flying under the radar because of the fear of vilification by the trans community or embarrassment at admitting they made a mistake?
There is a new study from a few months ago, using data from drug coverage for US military staffers' dependents. The use of testosterone in girls was examined, for dates of first prescription and whether the scrips were still filled 4 years later. It was found that 36% of natal females stopped the T. (it could be some found other sources, but the subject number, 354 males and females, is large enough to derive meaning from this datum) It was found that 20% of natal males stopped taking estrogen sometime in the 4 years. (Irwig, 2022) Since these hormones are prescribed after the "gender dysphoria" diagnosis, we can assume these were all cross-sex minors. The only reason the researchers had access to the prescriptions records is they are US military records. The mean age of subjects was 19, at the end of the 4 years, with no comments made about the truth this revealed regarding age of starting the drugs; we have to assume this was started when most were 14 or 15. We don't have info regarding surgeries that were regretted. Here's a link to the study with my comments:
The problem with the "detransition" statistics is that the rates vary greatly based on the use of "puberty blockers". If a child does not take puberty blockers, desistance is quite high by 18-19 - perhaps 80%. If the child does take puberty blockers, desistance is very low, perhaps < 5%. The trans train is PB->wrong-sex hormones->surgery. Sometimes surgery for girls to remove the breasts happens earlier.
This ideology makes liars of us all. The "trans" people who claim to be the opposite sex, and the rest of us who have to pretend to believe it. And it IS a War on Women.
First off, this is a good and accurate article. Perhaps that’s why it stings. Knowing the damage being done to kids is deeply saddening. Deeply. There’s something of a runaway train disaster happening with gender ideology. The momentum is overwhelming. I’m experiencing the strain on relationships, as many are, that you call out. It’s worth mentioning that even transsexual people will be harmed by the backlash when the public wises up to the deception of trans activism. Hopefully the damage to everyone can be minimized before this train goes off a cliff.
Eliza Mondegreen is interviewed on WDI youtube channel on her experiences as an undercover attendee of the recent meeting of WPATH in Canada. Shockingly, the doctors/practitioner speaking guests expressed cavalier attitudes regarding the societal disruptions they are promoting, as well as casual attitudes concerning the true lack of information in what they call "informed consent." Below, link to the interview, with my comments regarding captured language. I will soon be publishing The Heggen Lexicon of accurate terms for cross-sex ideation, eg, therapists' use of counter-transference in their "affirmation," and The Tinkerbell Effect, which is the wholesale affirmation of cross-sex ideation. When the terms are less captured, we can start thinking clearly about natal, biological sex, male and female, along with the societal damage currently on display. Here's the link to the Eliza Mondegreen interview:
As usual, my response will include the request that trans widows, ie, ex-wives of men ideating a female persona, be added as a category of women in our society, who are harmed by the manner in which their ex-husbands are encouraged to co-opt the wife's identity, through gestures, styles of make-up and fashion, language, new behaviors, and the insistence of "mother" as part of their new ID. My short clip about the damage done when a husband suddenly insists on degrading sex role play, as encouraged by the groomer therapists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLhxvxm-a7o
I am not arguing with that. I am saying they were a minority. I opposed - and most of us did - all those women all the time at the time. The problem is this: we who just wanted equality of opportunity won and left the fight. We won, why fight on?? They were still there with their crazy ideas battling on. And that ended up coupled with all sorts of things to lead to the present moment. So, just blame that strain of feminism and I am fully on board. They sucked then, they suck now. But the feminist project that I was a part of was not those folks at all. If I meet Butler, I will have a word!!
All it took for our son, who had ROGD (aka victim of social contagion), was sitting him down and explaining the ins & outs of completely normal and natural ADOLESCENCE. He's a smart kid, so fortunately it didn't take long for him to break free of the spell he was under. Now he's a happy, healthy, typical girl-chasing high schooler.
Was it ever a problem before this craziness? Except in the .2% of cases we simply ‘affirmed’ reality as a matter of course. We even accepted more masculine girls as ‘tomboys’, though more feminine boys didn’t fare as well. With this latter corrected, we need to go back to this. How? By a total and thorough rejection of gender ideology. It’s going to be a tough haul.
if adults didnt promote this fraud, kids wouldnt be falling for it as much. every gender biz stat and claim is a lie. every one.
we know that 85% of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it and ID again as their birth gender with unmedicated puberty. but even if they dont there no evidence gender meds or gender affirmation helps. UK, Sweden, finland reviews found it does more harm that good.
with activists promoting gender care as a salve to address every normal kid issue, its no wonder why kids seek this "care". its not easy being a kid. and its tougher when kids suffered trama, abuse or are having normal dysphoria due to being proto gay. the last thing kids need are unqualified homophobs promoting gender care that causes permanent life long loss of sexual function. if adults didnt promote this fraud, kids wouldnt be falling for it as much
It’s now humanity’s problem but a true reckoning with the issue must come with the understanding that ultimate responsibility for where we are lies at the feet of feminists. It’s they who, for their own political benefit, first propagated the lie that gender identity is entirely a social construct. Simone De Beauvoir in 1949 declared that a woman is not born, she is ‘made’, which might just as well serve as a slogan for today’s trans movement. It’s is this ideological falsehood that has underpinned nearly all of feminist driven policy and demands for rights since. Feminists today point fingers at the trans movement and say it’s full of misogyny. No. The misogyny is their own. Their own denial of biological reality for political gain is misogyny. They need to start looking in the mirror.
Feminists were not and never have been monolithic. The majority of us did not buy the proposition that you say was our creed. As a feminist, I wanted equal opportunity (and have received it via legal changes in the 70s and 80s). Most feminists I worked with on the fight for equality did not proclaim that there were not sexual differences between men and women but, instead, that some of the rigidity of gender roles was culturally-constructed, which is clearly true. It's a mix of biology and culture. As you are no doubt aware, feminists are in the forefront of fight against gender ideology (while other feminists are part of the problem.) This article gives a much better mix of the many causes of how this developed and the threads of responsibility. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-gender?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=225618&post_id=104560471&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
That's a good article. Of course, feminism didn't happen in a vacuum. I know also that feminism is not a monolith, which is very often what I hear every time I offer a criticism. That's not real feminism or the good feminism. I find it rather convenient. Still, I do think a lot of historical revisionism is going on about feminism's role in this debacle. It wasn't only De Beauvoir. Kate Millet, Andrea Dworkin, Judith Butler, to name a few others, fully promoted the decoupling of gender from biology. Butler is still around, so maybe someone should have a word with her.
gender ideology is a mens rights movement created by and for men. feminism is about equal rights. gender ideology is the opposite. a good example of what feminists were talking about is the way you declare by yourself what feminism is all about. meanwhile actual feminists tell you your wrong but you still continue with your woman hating rant.
I didn’t declare ‘by myself’. I cited prominent theorists in the history of feminism. They are the woman haters, not me. Feminists today would do well to actually own their thought leaders and recognize the ride they've been taken on.
"Gender Ideology"... utter that phrase only 10 years ago and except in the meeting rooms filled with angry, malcontent, man-hating, 3rd wave feminists on campus and non-profits... and you would have been met with a significant head tilt like lobsters have just crawled out of your ears.
The transgender ideology attempts to compel speech for society as a whole. You must affirm their untrue beliefs or else be castigated. You *must* use the pronouns. This should be reason enough to oppose it, on moral grounds alone. It is not just speech policing--"don't say that," as in don't say racial slurs--it is compelled speech, as in "you must say this thing, even if you don't believe it." Anyone who cares about free speech should find this abhorrent and beyond the pale. I know free speech has become a bit of a meme these days, but a lot of people still at least pretend to care about it.
While your article is well taken and I don't disagree with anything in it, it does strike me how centered the conversation is around emotional concerns. The most effective counter-argument to transgenderism does appear to be invoking sympathy for those it impacts negatively, particularly women. But in a sane world, it would be enough for people to simply point out that it is a delusional denial of reality, and this would destroy the ideology even if no one were actually harmed by it.
So true. This ideology should be rejected for emotional, physical and biologic reasons. I agree with the focus on the emotional however because emotions were used to encourage otherwise intelligent people to deny reality. Perhaps an emotional appeal will lead them back to the truth.
I find there to be a tension between the two concepts of being intelligent on the one hand, and blinded by emotion on the other. If you can be lead astray so easily by emotional concerns, even into such heights of absurdity as believing that men can somehow be women, how intelligent were you really to begin with? Not very, in my estimation.
I think the reason emotional appeals always matter more than logic is that emotional intensity tends to be a decisive factor in social power struggles. If you are a business that simply wants to be left alone and go along to get along, you will by necessity kowtow to the loudest, most obnoxious, most emotionally extreme voices, as these are the people who will impose consequences if you cross them. Upsetting some reserved intellectual is unlikely to matter as he/she is unlikely to start harassing your business in response. But overly emotional trans activists who have tied their entire identity to the trans ideology? They'll go to extremely irrational lengths to hurt you if you become a target.
I agree.
Another thing to throw into the mix, however, which explains how some intelligent people are easily conned. I have done a lot of research on the transgender disinformation campaign and discovered there were basic facts I was unaware of. Much time and effort was required to discern and confirm the facts. In discussion with many others especially those who support "gender affirming care" and all that entails, I realized they were clueless.
Many people have no time to do a deep dive and they rely on the little "news" they see. That "news" is curated to promote a narrative. It was only recently that conservative media began to tackle the subject in depth. Meanwhile this cancer has taken root everywhere in our society. Without independent research, these folks are unaware of what is going on in progressive states, in the classroom, on social media or in the surgeon's office. They would be shocked at the explosion of gender clinics since 2007 and have no idea what ROGD is. They haven't thought too deeply about what gender ideology even is. They are busy with their own lives. This makes them incredibly susceptible to the emotional appeal for "compassion".
Then add the incrementalism that has occurred with trans messaging. It is quite remarkable. The success of the trans "movement" should be an example of an incredibly well executed marketing campaign spanning decades.
Maybe I'm biased by having never really been much of a liberal myself, but I was able to discern perfectly well for myself that there were big problems with this ideology at first sight. Crossdressing is one thing (and was around long before "gender ideology"), but when I heard of the concept of "transgender surgery," whereby a man can somehow be given a functional vagina, I found it absurd right away. My instant reaction was that this is science-fiction levels of biological modification that are surely impossible in the real world. A cursory glance at the facts behind the narrative confirmed this suspicion, of course.
If you ever took this sort of claim seriously, then I don't know what else to say, you were simply ignorant. Maybe you are intelligent, but for whatever reason, you were very, very ignorant of very basic biological knowledge. The belief that surgery can create functional genitalia on people who were not born with them is straight up magical thinking. If you were ever convinced of this because CNN told you to believe it, then again, I have serious doubts about how intelligent you really are.
Anyways, putting all of that aside. You are of course completely correct that the trans phenomenon is an astonishing case study of just how powerful narrative control is, and this is a model that applies to most leftist beliefs generally, carefully constructed denials of basic reality that are enabled by the capture and subsequent wielding of supposed truth-telling institutions.
I had the same reaction as you initially and your logic is correct. The idea that we can actually change sex is completely absurd. I guess I am trying to find a way to understand how some of the folks I know are OK with what's going and how so many have allowed this to flourish. I guess the answer is that intelligence does not guarantee a person can actually think.
It's one thing for an adult who has gender identity disorder (which we know is a real thing for a tiny proportion of the population) to say I need to do the surgery to get through the day but I know I am still a man/woman. It is another thing entirely for that person to believe they have actually changed their sex. It's delusional and society should not enable it.
I think this derives from "intelligence" being too narrowly defined in our culture. We tend to think of intelligence as basically just meaning that you scored high on an IQ test which measures a certain kind of problem-solving. That is definitely one form of intelligence, but I would separate it from the ability to discern truth in conditions of social and moral uncertainty. It seems clear to me that some people are rich in one while sorely lacking in the other.
I prefer not to call someone intelligent if they lack this ability to discern truth, in part because being "intelligent" confers status in our society, and I believe people should not be rewarded with status if they show no ability to comprehend basic morality regardless of how high they may have scored on a test.
Another reason emotion matters more is due to self concept, how people wish to perceive themselves as compassionate and good and all that. How much do you ‘care’ for the marginalized and oppressed? Any appeal that turns on that will easily overwhelm facts and reason.
This is the key to the success the New Left has experienced in the past few decades since they established their beachhead in American academia.
They have captured morality (most esp for anyone remotely liberal) by identifying themselves w the oppressed and downtrodden, styling themselves as official Defenders of the Marginalized, and all flows from there.
This was helpful up to a decade ago, when it helped open society to more concern for black people, gay people, women (their Holy Trinity of Race Gender Sexuality). But in the intervening years—the introduction of smartphones and social media, the polarization of society, Social Justice becoming more and more the first purpose of culture & academia—tolerance has tipped over into socially enforced deference or celebration.
And the final factor, of course, is Trump. In the minds of people on Team Blue, Trump and the Republicans reek of nativism and bigotry and it has become absolutely socially unacceptable to even utter one word that may be construed as supporting them.
The section of society that controls the media, culture, academia etc refuses to even consider the sad tales of these families and the poor young people who have to experience "detransition": nothing matters more to them than tribal dogma and morality, which means there is ZERO chance of reasoning w them.
They have been trained and conditioned (much like cult indoctrination) that any word that comes from a "marginalized person" (even a child) is holy writ that must be worshipped and that only heretics would dare question.
As a colleague in the psychology field, I think that this essay is extremely thoughtful, very well reasoned, and precisely on target. I could not agree more. Sincerely, Frederick
Great work. We recently changed our name to the International Association for Dissident Mental Health Professionals. We are seeking managers for our divisions: https://nationalpsychotherapyassociation.weebly.com/.
Excellent essay, but it didn't go quite far enough. The impact of the "transgender" lie isn't limited to the nonsense the autogynephile billionaires have rammed down our throats today. It's the dystopian hell they've planned for us tomorrow.
One Yale doctor predicts that within the next ten years, the first baby gestated inside a transplanted uterus will be delivered by c-section from a man. And if the sperm used to fertilize the egg came from the same man, then that man would be both the biological father and the "birth mother" of the baby. Drs. Frankenstein and Mengele would be proud.
To those of you who insist that will never happen, I refer you to a 2018 article in the British Journal of Gynecology (BJOG) Uterine transplantation in transgender women https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.15482
And where will the donor uteruses and eggs come from? From the surgical waste container of the "transgender" F2M teenagers who demand hysterectomies after their double mastectomies.
The very last paragraph of the article should send shivers of fear up and down your spine.
"The reproductive aspirations of M2F transgender women deserve equal consideration to those assigned female at birth and, subject to feasibility being shown in the suggested areas of research, it may be legally and ethically impermissible not to consider performing UTx in this population."
In other words, these oxymoronic "ethicists" believe men have just as much right to be "mothers" as women. So who needs women at all.
And that's just within the next ten years. So try to imagine what the next twenty or thirty years will bring. The artificial uterus, "biobag" is now under development. It's not too far fetched to think that one day babies will be born as nullos with no genitals at all. Because these babies will never need that kind of equipment anyway.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant
Back to the present. Two days ago, I went to pick up my beloved terrier mix dog from the grooming salon at PetSmart. The young woman, barely out of her teens, who helped was clearly under the influence of the "transgender" Svengalis.
She had a head full of green, blue and purple hair. A post mastectomy chest. And a sparse, stomach turning orange beard that covered only the underside of her chin. Her voice was filled with baritone gravel. Moreover her BMI was way up in the range of obesity because massive doses of testosterone can do that to a woman.
Of course with her petite height, her doe like eyes and her delicate hands, she ain't never gonna pass as any kind of man. And she's set herself up for a medicalized life filled with chronic illnesses and a shortened life expectancy. But hey, she's living her "authentic" life. So let's get out the glitter and throw her a parade.
The key question for the United States and the rest of the world is how long can we continue to have a functioning society when the population is brainwashed to believe deviancy should be "celebrated."
Well, it's not actually going to happen in the next ten years, or likely ever; gestation is just WAY too complicated and dependent on female biology, no matter what some fanatic at Yale says. But I agree that's it's a horrific idea, whether it ever happends or not.
Yes. It is horrific. And, like you, I hope it never happens. But several teams of researchers around the world are working on this now. So who knows. Perhaps Colin can shed some light on this.
A transplanted uterus is going to require long term anti-rejection drugs to prevent it being destroyed. Such drugs can complicate and damage a pregnancy, but I don't suppose the narcissism of the FrankenTrans will let them consider the extra risk to the fetus as important.
Whether it can technically ever be achieved or not - my feeling is that it is a simply astonishing waste of time, money and all other resources concerned. It's not as if our species is in any danger of ever running out if men cannot gestate.
Thank you for this well-reasoned article. It's hard for me to imagine that calmer and clearer heads are not approaching this as the dangerous issue it is. When you throw reality out the window for fantasy, sooner or later the fantasy ends and all you have left is broken people and lives. Accommodating peoples wishes and feelings cannot be a good enough reason to let the world slip into madness....
I agree, but in your first two paragraphs, I feel that you tacitly accept some of the nonsense. You do not put quotes around "gender affirming," and that phrase is such nonsense. And you say that transwomen are entering women's spaces. OK, that is true. BUT, it is also any man who claims to be a transwoman. Because we are supposed to accept the notion that sexual predators will not lie to gain access to fresh victims. As if!!!! Of course they will. A world where an apparent man in a womens' only space is less likely to be challenged will be more dangerous for women. Full stop. He could be a transwoman or he could be a predator waiting for an opportune moment. But we will not know until that moment arrives, because no one will ask, in a world where doing so is seen as anti-trans. And if someone does ask he can always claim to be a woman, really. The craziest is putting men in womens prisons, as it requires accepting the words of convicted male criminals that they are actually women. And gee, why would any man lie to get into a womens prison??
I think the definition of transwoman is any man who says he identifies as a woman. Once we embrace self-id, there is no distinction between "true trans" and "men who want to invade women's spaces."
There is no such thing as "true trans." You have to let that go.
There are zero men who became women. Ever.
None of them.
None of them are "truly trans."
Wake ALL the way up from this psychological delusion, please.
They don't become women, but they do become transwomen. That is, they remove their male parts, add whatever female parts they can - and end up being, a transwoman. They do hormones that mimic female. It is different than being a man. It is different than being a woman. It is being trans - and they really are different than guys who don't do hormones, keep their male body and then say "I'm a woman". Those things are different. So, "true trans" in that context meant, they went the full nine yards to try to approximate a woman, though we agree that they cannot become one. The not "true trans" are men who have done nothing or minimal but claim the status of trans. I think it is important to differentiate between those two types of "trans" folks. One is; one isn't. Whatever you think of trans/ gender dysphoria issue, we need language to talk about these different sorts of folks.
Nope. Men.
Ipse dixit. "So let it be written, so let it be done." 🙄
You have to define your terms -- FIRST. That's the issue, and the "debate".
Ersatz "female parts" ...
But generally agree with your "we need language", an issue that too few seem willing to grapple with, largely because of prior commitments and emotional attachments. The words "male" and "female" have largely become content-free, and serve only as markers of tribal allegiance -- instead of labels for those with two types of quite transitory reproductive abilities.
More generally, the issue is what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as a woman. If just having a vagina -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof -- is sufficient then of course trans women are women. If it's a matter of functional ovaries being the necessary condition then menopausees don't qualify.
The wickets are getting rather "sticky" -- truth or consequences, a choice many seem desperate to avoid having to make.
See my post for some elaborations on those themes:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Biology makes it VERY SIMPLE. XX=female. XY=male.
Hence, males can N.E.V.E.R. be female, and females can N.E.V.E.R. be male.
Chromosomes aren't what determine which sex we are, particularly since there are about a dozen different combinations of the X and Y just among humans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence
In addition to which, many other species have entirely different chromosomes -- other than X & Y -- that still lead to the development of different sexes in those species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
Which is why the biological definitions use criteria other than chromosomes to qualify individuals as male or female, and which thereby apply to literally millions of other species. For example see the definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
By those definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither are thereby sexless.
The problem is the definition for "woman" and for "female".
Too many haven't a flaming clue that there's no intrinsic meaning to either of those words -- to any of our words in fact. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so there are NO definitions that qualify as gospel truth. The issue is only which definitions were going to agree qualify as trump.
And "woman" as "adult human female" is something of a poisoned chalice since, by the standard biological definitions, "women" get their "female" cards revoked at menopause.
A more useful definition is probably "adult human vagina-haver" but I rather doubt that most "women" will find that all that "palatable". "Vanity, vanity. All is vanity" saith the Preacher ...
See my post for some elaborations on those themes:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
Proponents of these therapies say the detransition rate is very low , (I've read less than 1%) but can anyone provide the actual statistics? Is it possible to find out, or are detransitioners and "regretters" mostly flying under the radar because of the fear of vilification by the trans community or embarrassment at admitting they made a mistake?
There is a new study from a few months ago, using data from drug coverage for US military staffers' dependents. The use of testosterone in girls was examined, for dates of first prescription and whether the scrips were still filled 4 years later. It was found that 36% of natal females stopped the T. (it could be some found other sources, but the subject number, 354 males and females, is large enough to derive meaning from this datum) It was found that 20% of natal males stopped taking estrogen sometime in the 4 years. (Irwig, 2022) Since these hormones are prescribed after the "gender dysphoria" diagnosis, we can assume these were all cross-sex minors. The only reason the researchers had access to the prescriptions records is they are US military records. The mean age of subjects was 19, at the end of the 4 years, with no comments made about the truth this revealed regarding age of starting the drugs; we have to assume this was started when most were 14 or 15. We don't have info regarding surgeries that were regretted. Here's a link to the study with my comments:
https://wordpress.com/post/uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com/5408
The problem with the "detransition" statistics is that the rates vary greatly based on the use of "puberty blockers". If a child does not take puberty blockers, desistance is quite high by 18-19 - perhaps 80%. If the child does take puberty blockers, desistance is very low, perhaps < 5%. The trans train is PB->wrong-sex hormones->surgery. Sometimes surgery for girls to remove the breasts happens earlier.
This ideology makes liars of us all. The "trans" people who claim to be the opposite sex, and the rest of us who have to pretend to believe it. And it IS a War on Women.
First off, this is a good and accurate article. Perhaps that’s why it stings. Knowing the damage being done to kids is deeply saddening. Deeply. There’s something of a runaway train disaster happening with gender ideology. The momentum is overwhelming. I’m experiencing the strain on relationships, as many are, that you call out. It’s worth mentioning that even transsexual people will be harmed by the backlash when the public wises up to the deception of trans activism. Hopefully the damage to everyone can be minimized before this train goes off a cliff.
Eliza Mondegreen is interviewed on WDI youtube channel on her experiences as an undercover attendee of the recent meeting of WPATH in Canada. Shockingly, the doctors/practitioner speaking guests expressed cavalier attitudes regarding the societal disruptions they are promoting, as well as casual attitudes concerning the true lack of information in what they call "informed consent." Below, link to the interview, with my comments regarding captured language. I will soon be publishing The Heggen Lexicon of accurate terms for cross-sex ideation, eg, therapists' use of counter-transference in their "affirmation," and The Tinkerbell Effect, which is the wholesale affirmation of cross-sex ideation. When the terms are less captured, we can start thinking clearly about natal, biological sex, male and female, along with the societal damage currently on display. Here's the link to the Eliza Mondegreen interview:
https://wordpress.com/post/uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com/5465
As usual, my response will include the request that trans widows, ie, ex-wives of men ideating a female persona, be added as a category of women in our society, who are harmed by the manner in which their ex-husbands are encouraged to co-opt the wife's identity, through gestures, styles of make-up and fashion, language, new behaviors, and the insistence of "mother" as part of their new ID. My short clip about the damage done when a husband suddenly insists on degrading sex role play, as encouraged by the groomer therapists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLhxvxm-a7o
Very well said. Thank you for taking the time.
I am not arguing with that. I am saying they were a minority. I opposed - and most of us did - all those women all the time at the time. The problem is this: we who just wanted equality of opportunity won and left the fight. We won, why fight on?? They were still there with their crazy ideas battling on. And that ended up coupled with all sorts of things to lead to the present moment. So, just blame that strain of feminism and I am fully on board. They sucked then, they suck now. But the feminist project that I was a part of was not those folks at all. If I meet Butler, I will have a word!!
How to get the kids to accept the body they are in? That’s the 64 dollar question
All it took for our son, who had ROGD (aka victim of social contagion), was sitting him down and explaining the ins & outs of completely normal and natural ADOLESCENCE. He's a smart kid, so fortunately it didn't take long for him to break free of the spell he was under. Now he's a happy, healthy, typical girl-chasing high schooler.
Was it ever a problem before this craziness? Except in the .2% of cases we simply ‘affirmed’ reality as a matter of course. We even accepted more masculine girls as ‘tomboys’, though more feminine boys didn’t fare as well. With this latter corrected, we need to go back to this. How? By a total and thorough rejection of gender ideology. It’s going to be a tough haul.
thats not the question.
if adults didnt promote this fraud, kids wouldnt be falling for it as much. every gender biz stat and claim is a lie. every one.
we know that 85% of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it and ID again as their birth gender with unmedicated puberty. but even if they dont there no evidence gender meds or gender affirmation helps. UK, Sweden, finland reviews found it does more harm that good.
https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence
medical group bmj research analysis found gender care cant use the claim that its based on "evidence".
https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382
with activists promoting gender care as a salve to address every normal kid issue, its no wonder why kids seek this "care". its not easy being a kid. and its tougher when kids suffered trama, abuse or are having normal dysphoria due to being proto gay. the last thing kids need are unqualified homophobs promoting gender care that causes permanent life long loss of sexual function. if adults didnt promote this fraud, kids wouldnt be falling for it as much
Great points.
Yeah, good question. I see several answers, and may write a RLS essay about this key issue.
It’s now humanity’s problem but a true reckoning with the issue must come with the understanding that ultimate responsibility for where we are lies at the feet of feminists. It’s they who, for their own political benefit, first propagated the lie that gender identity is entirely a social construct. Simone De Beauvoir in 1949 declared that a woman is not born, she is ‘made’, which might just as well serve as a slogan for today’s trans movement. It’s is this ideological falsehood that has underpinned nearly all of feminist driven policy and demands for rights since. Feminists today point fingers at the trans movement and say it’s full of misogyny. No. The misogyny is their own. Their own denial of biological reality for political gain is misogyny. They need to start looking in the mirror.
Feminists were not and never have been monolithic. The majority of us did not buy the proposition that you say was our creed. As a feminist, I wanted equal opportunity (and have received it via legal changes in the 70s and 80s). Most feminists I worked with on the fight for equality did not proclaim that there were not sexual differences between men and women but, instead, that some of the rigidity of gender roles was culturally-constructed, which is clearly true. It's a mix of biology and culture. As you are no doubt aware, feminists are in the forefront of fight against gender ideology (while other feminists are part of the problem.) This article gives a much better mix of the many causes of how this developed and the threads of responsibility. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-gender?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=225618&post_id=104560471&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
That's a good article. Of course, feminism didn't happen in a vacuum. I know also that feminism is not a monolith, which is very often what I hear every time I offer a criticism. That's not real feminism or the good feminism. I find it rather convenient. Still, I do think a lot of historical revisionism is going on about feminism's role in this debacle. It wasn't only De Beauvoir. Kate Millet, Andrea Dworkin, Judith Butler, to name a few others, fully promoted the decoupling of gender from biology. Butler is still around, so maybe someone should have a word with her.
gender ideology is a mens rights movement created by and for men. feminism is about equal rights. gender ideology is the opposite. a good example of what feminists were talking about is the way you declare by yourself what feminism is all about. meanwhile actual feminists tell you your wrong but you still continue with your woman hating rant.
I didn’t declare ‘by myself’. I cited prominent theorists in the history of feminism. They are the woman haters, not me. Feminists today would do well to actually own their thought leaders and recognize the ride they've been taken on.
your citing and misrepresenting. youre lying. and lying with hateful intent. congrats
I do dislike feminism. It’s a political movement. If you equate that with hating women, that’s your problem.
“Have you tried talking to a licensed therapist?” That’s how much of the harm begins.
"Gender Ideology"... utter that phrase only 10 years ago and except in the meeting rooms filled with angry, malcontent, man-hating, 3rd wave feminists on campus and non-profits... and you would have been met with a significant head tilt like lobsters have just crawled out of your ears.