Thanks for the post. Keep up the great work! Love your posting identity - we are indeed at REALITY’S LAST STAND and each of us must do everything in our power to make sure that it prevails. This proposed legislation is an abomination.
I agree the Equality Act should be rejected for all the reasons mentioned. I am a gay man who has leaned Democrat for much of my life, but this gender self-identification nonsense is a bridge to far!
It saddens me that so many of my left leaning friends can't see past the word "Equality," (which sounds like a good thing) and think through the real-life implications of the fine print the way Callie Burt does.
Gay man here. CAN WE STOP THIS INSANITY? For whatever is right, women need the tools at their disposal to protect themselves from people who will take advantage of this law. We know that there are deviants out there that have already taken advantage of the situation, so this is not hypothetical. Do women and girls need to feel unsafe or be harmed before we act? My head spins thinking that rational people ( ok, they are politicians) are REALLY considering enshrining this into law.
The recent association of LGB with T and pedophilic child mutilators has likely caused many people to reconsider their opinions about gays and lesbians. As a gay man I am saddened to see decades of progress erased by the maniac politicians who advocate this madness.
Women need their own single sex spaces as do men. If the justification for your stance is that some men will take advantage of the laws, then no woman is safe. I'm sure the data shows that men over the age of 60 rarely commit crimes against women but that doesn't mean we should allow 60+ men into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc.
The heart of the problem is we've become accustomed to believing that all discrimination is bad. It is not. It is perfectly reasonable and moral to discriminate against men in women's spaces and to discriminate against women in men's spaces. Men and women are fundamentally different and therefore require different treatment at times.
Agree. I fear those who have the attribute of being LGB, who have nothing to do with child genital mutilation or denying immutable biology while mocking women, are going to end up losing the wide spread support and acceptance simply because woke activists have connected naturally opposing groups. The I also has nothing to do with the T or the LGB. Basic questions are ignored - How can someone be pro “LGB” while demanding lesbians sleep with men who think they are women? How can someone be pro LGB while convincing fabulous boys to chop their genitals off and be permanently impotent? These things seem overtly cruel to me.
Most people, even conservatives in this country, really don’t give two craps what other consenting adults do in their bedroom or how their relationships function. Most people think for marriage in the eyes of the government means everybody gets a person as long as both are consenting adults not related by blood. At the same time, most people don’t support men, regardless of how they feel, invading private spaces and athletics for women and girls to force us to coddle their delusions at the expense of our own bodily safety. Most parents don’t support groomers no matter the semantics - teachers shouldn’t be talking to kids about sex toys and positions and techniques for any reason ever. Everyone with a moral compass knows child genital mutilation and sterilization is cruel.
Right now the public is being ordered to accept this package deal. As recent polls suggest, the public will increasingly reject the whole package if it’s all or none. I hope people who happen to be LGB reclaim the organizations claiming to represent them before it’s too late.
This recent article by Kara Dansky (president of Women's Declaration International - USA) on the current status of the Equality Act is very informative:
KD: "In this case, a doctor had a male patient and the doctor was concerned that his male patient might have prostate cancer. The male patient said, essentially, 'I identify as a woman, therefore I do not have a prostate, therefore I cannot have prostate cancer.' Literally. But the doctor received federal funding under the Act, so he was worried that referring the man for prostate cancer testing would constitute unlawful 'gender identity' discrimination, so he was unable to provide proper treatment to his patient."
Absolutely astounding that a rather serious pathology affecting, presumably, a small number of people has had such far-reaching and deleterious effects.
Jul 6, 2023·edited Jul 7, 2023Liked by Callie Burt
This feels like one of those bills politicians introduce *because* they know it has no chance of becoming law. Not only would it pass neither the House nor the Senate, it would likely not survive Supreme Court review, unless the membership of that court changes drastically, and soon. Given that reality, Rep. Takano, the primary sponsor has every incentive to shoot for the stars. He might as well include free Paramount Plus accounts for every American, right?
I'm kidding. Nobody wants a Paramount Plus membership even if if IS free. ;-)
Your view represents a clear line that will protect women from abuse. I understand some legitimate transgender females may feel some discomfort with the restrictions, but the already evident harm to women is horrendous. That is being reported widely in spite of the widespread censorship that is prevalent in many news sources and online. If a man is anatomically a female there could be some accommodation, but only after full anatomical change. Child genital mutilation must stop even if it is misnamed “gender affirmation.”
What is a "legitimate transgender female?" It is very discomfiting when one wants to obliterate the personal boundaries of another human and he gets told "NO!" It happens to pedophiles when we tell them they don't get access to children. Very discomfiting indeed! If one is a man, it's impossible to "anatomically be a female," no matter the size of the plastic boob or the surgically fashioned body cavity. If a woman has her breasts removed due to cancer, she is still "anatomically a female." You are welcome to accommodate these men however you want but you are not going to force me to accommodate them.
The term "legitimate transgender" may be inartfull but does raise a neglected question. In one situation, I have no problem treating an individual as a member of their self identified sex.
acquainted with two M2F trans people. Neither is an activist or nutso. I'd emphasize both transitioned as adults in mid-life with the benefit of considerable psychotherapy followed by a lengthy, gradual, carefully supervised, and thorough transition. Both say it was a great improvement in their lives.
(One tells the story of how her parents were cool with the thought that their son was going to be their daughter; but when she told them she would have to get a new job in a different city, they would were worried. At the time, she had held for considerable time a mid management position with a major news organization. Her Dad said, "Are you sure about this? You know, a good job is hard to find.")
The second situation, however, leaves me confused and conflicted. That's the case of very young children, mostly boys, who persistently and insistantly say they are "really" the opposite sex or that they wish they were. In the few studies I've found that show that the most common outcome for prepubescent kids showing signs and symptoms of gender dysphoria is that they mostly mature into normal gay teens or less commonly, into ordinary straight youngsters. It's that small number of kids in the group described above for whom puberty is not the solution that twist me every which way. I just do not know what to think about them. If there were a reliable way to make a clear diagnosis, I'd probably be okay with medical treatment. As it is, I'm terrified of the high probability of a false positive diagnosis and consequent harmful treatment. And the notorious - and unprofessional, in my opinion - enthusiasm of health care providers and their professional societies for "gender affirming" treatment that scares the bejabbers out of me, especially seeing that "gender non-conforming" behaviors or expressions of same-sex attraction may be taken as signs of GD. This approach is truly the new homophobia; and the medical treatment, simply another iteration of the age-old dream of "conversion therapy", just reframed and renamed.
There is no "neglected question" or any question, for that matter. You told me about 2 men you know who had surgery and dress (I assume) to try and appear like women. They are still men and you are free to refer to them and treat them however you want. I know of no-one advocating control over how you treat these men. That's great it works for them but it has absolutely nothing to do with me or with other women. That's awesome neither is an activist, but again, their needs and actions have zero to do with me and other women. There is no mythical "gender dysphoria," but there are children and some adults bothered by what they believe are role expectations for their sex. Effeminate boys with a father, mother, teacher or other person obsessed with seeing children display stereotypical behavior could negatively affect those children. Growing up I often was on the receiving end of hostility and suspicion for not "acting like a girl." I used to regularly be asked why I hated being a girl. I didn't hate being female, and what was really going on was these people hated that I didn't conform to their stereotype. Now these same lunatics are manipulating children (and adults) and chopping body parts off.
John Robert, I am assuming from your name that you are a man, but with the awareness that user names are not necessarily the user's real name. If you are a man, you are not aware of how much mental space is occupied in women's minds by the fear of being assaulted by men.
Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report having been sexually assaulted. Many of these women are seriously affected for life. The rates of PTSD among women who have been raped are similar to the rates of PTSD among male combat veterans. Women who have not been assaulted have through their whole lives been assailed by media coverage and movies portraying women being attacked by violent men.
Women are vigilant on a daily basis about where it is safe to be at what hour and with whom. We are at least reasonably vigilant, and most women I know carry weapons to ward off potential attackers. Women's restrooms in particular are places where we are usually at a great disadvantage. It's not like we have our pepper spray out and handy, and spraying it in an enclosed small space is not a good idea. Restrooms are ideal places in which to corner someone. They are also places where sex offenders are likely to be maximally turned on.
Other, more obvious weirdos do hang out in women's rest rooms and commit non-violent sex offenses like exposing themselves. This has occurred multiple times in the building where I have my office. The ladies who were victimized by these creeps were shook up and afraid to continue using the rest rooms.
No one should be given the power to decide how much risk a woman has to absorb to accommodate men who insist on using our bathrooms or locker rooms. I find it totally outrageous that trans-identified males come on videos and demand to use women's facilities because they fear being assaulted by men in the men's restrooms. I do agree with them that there is a potential for certain men to get violent in rest rooms, and that includes a certain segment of trans-identified males who assault women.
Let's accommodate to people who prefer the privacy of a one-stall locking bathroom, and otherwise require that the group bathrooms be segregated by biological sex.
Damned buggy edit function. In first paragraph, should be no new paragraph after "... self identified sex" and new sentence starts "I am acquainted...."
Oh, yeah. But only when I'm reading in email. Problem is with the Substack app. Whenever I go to reply, the article opens in the Substack app. (Maybe should delete it except for its other features.)
This is America so you have right to state your opinion. I think it’s very rare, but it likely does occur. It’s just not as common as the left is pushing to advance their warped agenda. They shouldn’t be picked on. I do think the bullying “trans” are mostly faking or have other problems.
You're trying to use children as your shield to push hogwash. Male and female is a biological reality, not an opinion. Those men and women with disorders of sexual development are still either male or female. The only ones being attacked, or in your words "picked on," are the women and men stating biological facts, and parents trying to protect their children. The rules are very easy: leave others alone, don't try and mess with and propagandize other people's children, and don't bulldoze and slam a way in on the privacy of the opposite sex. If one is unable to control himself or herself and not mess with people in the above ways, there are consequences.
The only "anatomical change" that would turn an adult human male into an adult human female is if he has his testicles replaced with functional ovaries of his own.
By standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, in that absence itself, sexLESS. See the Glossary here:
By those criteria, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to be able to dish with the girls ...
Even if a man got a uterus implant and gave birth via c-section, he would not be an adult human female. He would be a man who mimicked gestation and birth.
Agree entirely. Why I emphasized the "functional gonads" -- something that Colin once did himself, more or less:
Colin: "What if I woke up and my reproductive anatomy had somehow inexplicably changed from a functional penis and testes to a functional vagina and ovaries? Would I cease to be male? 100% YES! I would absolutely now be a female."
Though it is maybe moot whether his "functional" applies to both penis & testes, to both vagina and ovaries. Particularly since he, Emma Hilton, and Heather Heying apparently thought, at one point, that non-functional gonads are qualifying criteria:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
Though a rather problematic formulation on Colin's part since it might open the door to transwomen getting transplants of non-functioning ovaries -- what tangled webs we weave ...
But a rather "unscientific" perspective on the part of Hilton and Company. I rather doubt any scientific definitions include both potential and actual in the criteria for category membership. A new born child IS a teenager because it has the POTENTIAL to become one? Does not compute ...
You could probably use a remedial course or two in basic reading comprehension.
Hilton and Company clearly tendered a stipulative definition for the sexes:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
My analogy was sort of a reductio ad absurdum, a challenge to their definition. They might just as well argue that a "clock" is still a "clock" even after it's been pounded into rubble, melted down into an ingot, and hammered into bottle openers.
As difficult as I'm sure this will be for you, at least try putting brain in gear before putting mouth in motion.
You've clearly come to a gun fight with no more than a penknife, and a rubber one at that.
Try chewing on this -- hardly much better than your folk-biology, but might provide a half way house for the vain, logic-challenged, and scientifically illiterate:
Same IMHO for the "queers", "nonbinary", "gender fluid", etc., especially found in abundance among the staff and guests at NPR and NYTimes, especially those covering arts and entertainment.
1) a large majority of people thought trans people should be protected from discrimination in jobs, housing and other matters. (Note: no discussion of SCOTUS 6 to 3 decision in _Bostock_ in opinion by Gorsuch J., Roberts C.J. and others concurring, that discrimination against trans employees constituted prohibited sex discrimination.)
2) Similarly large majority thought trans athletes should compete on basis of sex "assigned" at birth.
3) Large majority thought "gender" was determined by sex "assigned" at birth.
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this (or if I had, I forgot). As I think you allude to perhaps in #2, given ambiguous language and lack of shared understanding, what we can make of these surveys is not clear.
For example, a nontrivial proportion of people--particularly people in older generations--do not know what transgender mean. Some think it refers to people with DSD conditions or people who have had 'sex reassignment surgery'. If asked, should bepenised males be allowed to share a locker room and shower with females, including minor girls, because they identify as women, how many would say yes? We don't know because this question hasn't been in this type of polling, to my knowledge.
In case not clear, I think transgender people should be protected from discrimination on the basis of being transgender (i.e., that people should not be fired or refused housing on the basis of being transgender). However, I do not think it is discrimination against transgender people to maintain sex-separated sports or have a female-only policy for employees at a female intimates store or for dancers at a Gentlemen's club. In such cases, that would not be discrimination on the basis of being transgender, in my view, but allowable differential treatment on the basis of sex (i.e., gender identity is irrelevant). Thanks again for sharing.
Callie, Took a gander at your website -- this in particular looks interesting:
CB: "In addition, I have a longstanding interest in socio-legal issues around sex and gender, with a particular interest in how gender–as a set of social norms imposed on male and female bodies–limits the full humanity of males and females and constrains female bodies in subordinate (caregiving, passive) roles."
However, I'm not sure where you think those "gender norms" come from. Some reason to argue -- as does Colin himself -- that "gender" can be taken as a rough synonym for personalities and personality types which might reasonably be seen as the basis for, and source of those "norms". Apropos of which, you might have some interest in a Substack post by feminist philosopher Kathleen Stock who quite reasonably argued that it was "barking (mad)" to want to abolish either gender itself or the norms that follow therefrom:
And this was likewise of more than passing interest:
CB: "Finally, I have a burgeoning interest in philosophy of science and critical science studies. .... After all, 'if you do not try to check ideas by trying to debunk them, you are not practicing science' (Rauch 1993)."
Amen to that last part. Apropos of which and of the fact that far too many so-called biologists and philosophers have made a dog's breakfast out of defining the sexes, you might have some particular interest in this essay at the PhilPapers Archive by Paul Griffiths -- University of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- on the topic of "What are biological sexes?":
Of particular note is his argument that the sexes are transitory states that many members of many anisogamous species, including the human one, pass into and out of over the course of their lives -- hardly "immutable":
PG: "Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes - one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. .... The idea of biological sex is critical for understanding the diversity of life, but ill-suited to the job of determining the social or legal status of human beings as men or women."
Thanks for the interest. I'm familiar with Stock's work and a fan of some of Griffiths' work (including that with Stotz you mention) but not his work on sex. Griffiths is, of course, free to argue that humans pass in and out of sex categories in their lives, and I am free to point to all available evidence which shows that humans, unlike clownfish, do not change sex. :)
To gender: I conceptualize gender as the set of norms imposed on male and female bodies. Stereotypes and norms around how males and females should be is "gender". This is conception of gender is *wholly compatible* with the position that there are sex differences in personality and behavior that are rooted in biology. Here's the difference:
Gender: Females should be passive, submissive, caregiving, not competitive, etc.
Sex: Females are, as a group, more nurturing than males, as a group.
De nada; definitely some food for thought there. 🙂
However, neither I nor Griffiths are arguing that humans can change sex, only that "male" and "female" are not exhaustive categories -- many members of many species, including the human one, are neither male nor female -- they're sexless.
But, with all due respect, it seems that you're starting off on the wrong foot, not really being willing to "debunk" unscientific "theories", not actually "practicing science" 🙂. There really is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female" -- the latter used to mean "she who suckles":
By which I guess Jenner & his ilk might qualify, even if the milk is probably unfit for human consumption.
The point is that there are no definitions for the sexes that qualify as gospel truth -- they weren't in the first dictionary that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. We can define those categories any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But those based on functional gonads as the sine qua non, as the necessary & sufficient conditions for category membership, are more or less standard and universal -- see the Glossary in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
As for "gender", it seems that your definitions or conceptualizations only encompass the more pejorative and inaccurate stereotypes. Stock quite reasonably argues for more socially useful and accurate ones.
Major part of the problem, as Colin emphasized in that tweet of his, is that pretty much every last man, woman, and otherkin has a different definition for "gender" and "gender identity". Seems that progress will be contingent on finding the most scientifically justified one, and thereby the most useful one. Some reason to argue that that is one which encompasses both stereotypes and the personalities and personality types from which they're derived.
Apropos of which, you might have some interest in Substacker Lee Jussim's article on stereotypes:
"Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology"
To the first, one cannot do all science all the time. I find the evidence that human sex is binary to be compelling, and, if presented with strong evidence to the contrary, I will revisit my understandings. I have not seen any evidence or strong arguments to the contrary. That some people have conditions that impairs the developmental pathway for males and females does not make sex transient or mutable, in my view.
How people in earlier eras understood male-female, and the etymology of the words, have no bearing on my understanding of human sex today.
We agree there are many definitions of gender, and I have written on the topic. That is the one I believe most useful, and I adopt (and define) in my work. I agree that the term is muddled almost to the point of uselessness in the mainstream and much of science.
The extent to which stereotypes are accurate is irrelevant to my definition of gender as "norms" or the utility of such a concept of gender. Whether 99% of females are naturally caregiving and submissive or 56% is irrelevant to my (sociological) conception of "gender", which includes that females tend to be expected to be caregiving and submissive. Moreover, males and females have never existed outside of society so it's not possible to say how much of female "caregiving and submissiveness" is due to biology versus society. They are intertwined. I thought I made clear in my previous, that I was not arguing that "gender" is cut from whole cloth; so to be clear, I do not believe it is. :)
Callie: "... one cannot do all science all the time."
Something of a jest on my part. 🙂
Callie: "I find the evidence that human sex is binary to be compelling ..."
I am most certainly not disputing "binary", only that it's not exhaustive. IF religion encompassed only Christianity and Islam THEN that's a binary -- but it's not exhaustive because there are those who are neither, who are atheists.
But that claim of "binary" is kind of contingent on how one DEFINES the sex categories. Clear evidence of literally millions of anisogamous species that are characterized by those who can reproduce BECAUSE they can produce either large gametes or small ones. That is the basis for the definition as a binary. You might have some interest in the "science" of taxonomy:
Wikipedia: "Taxonomy ... the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics."
The shared characteristics of producing large and small gametes -- shared by millions of species and billions if not trillions of members of them -- is the basis for that naming and defining "male" & "female".
Callie: "That some people have conditions that impairs the developmental pathway for males and females ..."
There is absolutely nothing at all in any of the standard biological definitions about "developmental pathways". That is little more than folk-biology at best if not outright Lysenkoism. See the Molecular Human Reproduction article:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Callie: "... so it's not possible to say how much of female 'caregiving and submissiveness' is due to biology versus society. "
Agreed: nature vs nurture.
But if you agree those stereotypes are not cut from whole cloth then I think you're agreeing that what you call particular genders are exhibited by actual people -- ergo, their personalities are, in part at least, those genders. Hence the justification for "gender" to encompass both.
However, I'll concede there's some "murkiness", some scope for misperceptions, for "honest people disagreeing". Analogously, there are many measures of populations -- averages for example -- that only a few or limited number of members actually exhibit. For example, in a population of heights of {62, 64, 66, 68} [inches], the average is 65, but no member of it is of that height.
Averages are just abstractions as are the sexes; no one will ever do an autopsy on any of us and find, much less measure the weights and volumes of, our "males" and "females". The words "male" and "female" are just labels that denote membership in particular categories, membership in which is contingent on paying the requisite "membership dues" -- i.e., having functional gonads of either of two types.
Sufeitzy: "Reality is that gender isn't part of reality."
Maybe a clever quip, but I really don't think it holds much water. At least if one defines "gender" and "gender identity" -- as many quite reasonably do -- as a rough synonym for personality and personality types. Which I would assume you would consider a "part of reality". But for several examples, Colin Wright more or less does so, or he at least accepts that that is a common definition:
So any personality trait that differentially correlates with sex -- any sexually dimorphic trait -- might be said to constitute a separate axis on a multi-dimensional spectrum of gender.
And see this Note and the included post by biological psychologist Frederick Prete:
FP: "... there is a need for a thorough examination of what "identity" means from a psychological point of view, and the complex interacting factors that shape it. .... Clearly, people do have 'gender identities' just like they have identities pertaining to other societal roles and self-perceptions."
As Frederick argues at some length, the problem is not gender/gender-identity themselves, but the dog's breakfast that many have made out of the concept, and their misuses of it.
More particularly, it is less a problem that, say, some boy has a "feminine gender identity", that he has a "feminine gender" -- at least on some of those axes -- than that those misuses and misunderstandings leads others into thinking and arguing and tricking him into thinking that he should thereby mangle his genitalia to more closely match those of typical females. An egregious medical scandal, a crime of the century.
Fox: "And you have the unmitigated temerity to cast yourself as some sort of oracle on scientific truth."
I'm not doing anything of the fucking sort. For virtually anything I say I provide a link to and quote of something in the way of an authoritative source who's saying about the same thing.
You may blather on -- as you're wont to do -- about "argument from authority", but the only "authority" you ever even allude to is no better than the man-in-the-street. A scientific illiterate at best if not a "cruel bumpkin of the Middle Ages" or "his pal, the naked bushman leaping around his tribal fire."
No doubt many "authorities" aren't worth a pinch of coonshit, much less their salaries -- Feynman said as much, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts":
But that doesn't mean that all experts, all authorities can or should be dismissed, only that what they say is open to dispute or disagreement -- if one has the goods. Which Feynman more or less emphasizes is the case.
And if one doesn't have those goods -- you, for the most part, at least on anything to do with sex and gender -- then one is obliged to accept what they say, at least provisionally. Just shooting yourself in the feet to say otherwise -- being charitable.
Fox: " 'Gender' has been adulterated into uselessness, and since it's so proximate to 'personality,' we should expunge it."
More or less agree with your premise -- i.e., "uselessness" -- but the conclusion doesn't in any way follow therefrom. Just something you've pulled out of your arse. And that apparently because the definition of "gender" as synonymous with personalities and personality types conflicts with what is little more than your (mis)understanding of folk-biology, if not a pile of anti-scientific claptrap.
You might want to reflect on something -- not that you seem much capable of that -- from something in the way of an expert on emergence, Melanie Mitchell, from her "Complexity, A Guided Tour":
Mitchell: “Any perusal of the history of science will show that the lack of a universally accepted definition of a central term is more common than not. …. Science often makes progress by inventing new terms to describe incompletely understood phenomena; these terms are gradually refined as the science matures and the phenomena become more completely understood.” [pg. 95]
No doubt that a great deal of rather toxic "bathwater" has been produced in "bathing" the "baby" of "gender". But it might be wise to not throw the latter out with the former.
Hardly takes much "expertise" to simply note, as he did, that:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes."
But curious then that you seem rather "reluctant" to accept the "expertise" of "authorities" Colin, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying in their stipulative definitions for the sexes they had published in the UK Times. Which, I might emphasize, say diddly-squat about any chromosomes. At least as far as I can see; maybe you'll have better luck ... 🙄
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the posts published here that explicitly accept -- more or less -- the same definitions I've been quoting that were published in the "authoritative" MHR.
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the definitions published in the "authoritative" Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
This whole creepy mess with government trying to cram gender id down the citizens’ unwilling throats began in spring 2016 when the Obama admin issued the “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students.” It was all there -- guys picking their own restrooms, lockers, showers, deciding that they could play as a girl on any sports team without question, forcing use of wrong pronouns on others, stay in girls’ rooms on overnight field trips. Of course, parents were not to know that any of this was going on (not their business, you know).
The infamous Letter was distributed to all US Public schools, K-12 and publicly funded colleges and universities, with the expectation that the policies would be universally implemented by the fall. Otherwise, the schools were threatened with federal funding for noncompliance with the new policies.
A federal judge struck it down just before it went into effect in August. He didn’t have to look far. The Obama admin overlooked having the policy-making letter undergo a public comment period, required of all bureaucratically implemented procedures. The Administrative Procedure Act dictates a public comment period, and it was glaringly, very incompetently overlooked.
The Biden admin is trying to undo TIX and women’s rights again. This time, the APA was followed assiduously, garnering over 100,000 comments, but very much against it. A state in a similar situation simply ignored the negative comments and did as they pleased. Then, of course, there’s the EA, and they don’t have to care about the APA.
That’s just a very brief rundown on where we happen to be now. Face it, what they keep trying to do against us outrageous, abominable, unacceptable. The only way they cease and desist is to keep fighting them and defeat them in every venue and on every level (recalling Churchill’s stirring ‘never surrender’ speech). There are plenty of other things that will no doubt come along, but right now we have to drive this cult into oblivion.
I was banned by the WSJ because I responded to a commenter's remark that he doubted the validity of information that underage kids can access "gender affirmative care" without their parents' knowledge or permission. I explained that it is easy for a state to arrange this situation, because the state decides the age of consent, can also decide what insurance has to cover, and can also allocate public funds to paying for medicalized transitions. WSJ told me my comment was censored because it "didn't meet community standards."
The senior age feminists I know are all liberal Democrats. When I see them they are always upset about Donald Trump or exultant about the latest show trial about him. Apparently their media cover Donald Trump, the Ukraine war, and run smear campaigns against DeSantis and Musk. That's about it.
"You'll get an email with the subject "Your account on Medium" signed by "Roger (he/him).""
LOL!!
I would love to know what the WSJ "community standard" consists of. I suppose the community is ten or so 22 year old they/thems with green hair, and the truth is beneath their standard. These people need to be sentenced to 100 years of nonstop ridicule.
Even if a women is not an active member of any of these organizations, any woman that went against the phrase "transwomen are women" after 2016 came under attack.
Even very prominent feminists such as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie have been more or less cancelled since 2017 on social media for refusing to repeat the mantra "transwomen are women".
So that's where feminists are: cancelled.
The only non-cancelled feminists are the ones that lick the boots of the transagenda and the ones that stay silent.
Republicans have been stupid and asleep allowing hate crime laws to proliferate. That was the beginning of a Pandora's Box of problems as it established a mindset that we can criminalize the guessed emotions of others (because one can never really know the emotions of others). The absurdity of woke just builds on that great mistake. Instead of debating if we need to oppose this Equality Act to mainstream choice of sexual preference and fashion over biology, we need to go on the offensive with national legislation that makes all hate-crime laws illegal. It is an illiberal concept that should never have been accepted in this country given our First Amendment.
You cannot accurately assess the emotions of a person from the words they say. But it makes no difference as we should never criminalize emotions.
If someone materially harms another while saying words deemed to be hateful by some, the crime should be the material harm not the words. If someone says words deemed hateful by some but does no material harm (and no, the impact of the words is not material harm) then there is no crime. If someone says words consider slander or libel, then sue in civil court.
Killing a stranger for being _________ (fill in the blanks) does not mean hate. It means murder. And murder does send waves of terror. But again, it is not hate because nobody can know what emotions another is feeling. Even if a person says "I hate you", you cannot assume it is really hate. My kids have said that to me many times growing up when they were told no about something. And at times I bet they were so angry that they had dreams about causing me pain.
If someone kills someone else, it is murder and should be prosecuted and tried as murder. That is it. It is clear.
If you add "hate" enhancements then Pandora's Box is opened for believing that emotional minds can be read... and thus hate crime laws can be exploited by people with an agenda to get revenge or to cause other forms of harm.
I have a gay friend that agrees with me. He once explained that he probably hates people that hate gays more than they hate gays. But he said he should be free to hate as so should they. It isn't the emotion of hate that is the problem, it is the material harm that someone would do to another. Frankly, I say welcome the verbal hate attacks as it probably diffuses physical acts that would otherwise occur.
There is no reason why there can't be a couple of one person/any-gender restrooms to accommodate transgender people. I personally know a butch woman who won't use public restrooms because other women tend to call her out as a man in the women's rest room. There aren't very many people out there who are "really trans" anyway. It's not as disruptive to accommodate them as it is to impose their special issues on everyone else.
The Seattle airport (at least until I moved from there in 2019) had the single-use handicapped and family restrooms be "all gender" friendly. For large places with such facilities, this seems acceptable.
For smaller businesses, which have sex-based restrooms, this is not feasible, imo. I think the work that needs to be done is make sure that people are safe in their sex-based facilities. The only attacks on transwomen in restrooms that I've seen is the one case where the transwoman was attacked by a male for using the women's restroom in some story a few years ago that was a bit weird, and I don't remember the details.
I'm surprised to hear that your friend is routinely called out in the women's restroom. We are usually able to accurately identify females versus males (except when the former has undergone CSHT).
Unless single stall, I don't want all-gender restrooms. Even in places that have unisex single stall bathrooms, in my experience, the males gravitate to one and the females to the other. A local middle school went "all gender", and it was a mess: literally and for the girls who were taunted by the boys on occasion. Just my opinion.
I forgot to add that I was proposing private, locking, single stall unisex bathrooms. One of the grocery stores I use has multiple stall "all gender" bathrooms. I can't imagine very many people feeling comfortable with that; it's not normal in our culture to mix sexes in bathrooms except for heterosexual couples. I am curious regarding what demographics use that bathroom. Young people here in Portland might feel pressured to use it to signal that they are complying with gender ideology, but I would predict that since that 4 stall bathroom went woke it is less utilized than the segregated bathrooms. Who knows what happens next? Maybe some states will require that the stalls no longer have doors.
I agree that the first priority is to preserve and protect women's safety and existing rights as "women."
Many masculine women pass easily as men if there is just a casual glance, like you get from a startled woman who is already in a restroom. The experience of being "called out in women's restrooms" has in my own experience been mentioned multiple times by women in online discussion groups, and the subject was brought up like others will know what they mean. For example, one commenter said she wanted to discuss how (whatever issue we were on) affects "the kind of woman who gets called out in public restrooms." (This site had nothing to do with "gender" styles, and was not a gay site).
In addition to the woman I mentioned in my post, there are a few other women in my social circle who when they meet strangers are frequently or consistently read as men. In the case of the woman I mentioned first, the observers consistently and instantly refer to her as "Sir" and "he" and they don't usually come to recognize their error. The other two women I know who pass beyond a stranger's first glance have masculine, athletic body configurations, masculine body movements and gestures, and are both 5'9" or more tall.
Maybe somewhat apropos of which, been reading a few stories about Chaz Bono who seems happy with "his" transition, though at the time of the article he hadn't had bottom surgery:
Yes, you are correct. I would like to find a way to make the businesses pay the cost, not the taxpayers. The local "clean food" grocer converted all their bathrooms to "all gender," and pasted signs on the walls everywhere you look that scold customers in advance before they have a chance to complain: "If you think that someone is using the 'wrong restroom', change your attitude. Trans and non-binary people have the right to use any restroom they choose without having to be afraid." A more extensive paragraph of lecturing was included, but I didn't read it. Same thing happened when I took a friend to the ER. The hospital bathrooms all had signs outside the doors with a similar message, not quite as overtly hostile.
Actually, I haven't gone back to that store even though it is the closest source of high quality produce. I was very turned off by the sign scolds, whoever they are (probably more of the twenty-somethings with green hair). But here in Portland it is not always possible to boycott all the woke businesses, because there aren't many resources here that are not captured. The ideology push and identity signaling is overwhelming in many locally owned small businesses. I find this to be really bizarre behavior. It reminds me of teen age gang members who are blasting out their identities in a continually "loud" way, through their clothing, their hand gestures, their music, etc.
Thanks for the post. Keep up the great work! Love your posting identity - we are indeed at REALITY’S LAST STAND and each of us must do everything in our power to make sure that it prevails. This proposed legislation is an abomination.
I agree the Equality Act should be rejected for all the reasons mentioned. I am a gay man who has leaned Democrat for much of my life, but this gender self-identification nonsense is a bridge to far!
It saddens me that so many of my left leaning friends can't see past the word "Equality," (which sounds like a good thing) and think through the real-life implications of the fine print the way Callie Burt does.
Thank you!
Gay man here. CAN WE STOP THIS INSANITY? For whatever is right, women need the tools at their disposal to protect themselves from people who will take advantage of this law. We know that there are deviants out there that have already taken advantage of the situation, so this is not hypothetical. Do women and girls need to feel unsafe or be harmed before we act? My head spins thinking that rational people ( ok, they are politicians) are REALLY considering enshrining this into law.
The people who support this "Equality Act" are the enemies of gays and lesbians. A recent Gallup poll showed that public approval of same sex relationships has fallen 7 points in the last year. https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx
The recent association of LGB with T and pedophilic child mutilators has likely caused many people to reconsider their opinions about gays and lesbians. As a gay man I am saddened to see decades of progress erased by the maniac politicians who advocate this madness.
Women need their own single sex spaces as do men. If the justification for your stance is that some men will take advantage of the laws, then no woman is safe. I'm sure the data shows that men over the age of 60 rarely commit crimes against women but that doesn't mean we should allow 60+ men into women's bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc.
The heart of the problem is we've become accustomed to believing that all discrimination is bad. It is not. It is perfectly reasonable and moral to discriminate against men in women's spaces and to discriminate against women in men's spaces. Men and women are fundamentally different and therefore require different treatment at times.
Agree. I fear those who have the attribute of being LGB, who have nothing to do with child genital mutilation or denying immutable biology while mocking women, are going to end up losing the wide spread support and acceptance simply because woke activists have connected naturally opposing groups. The I also has nothing to do with the T or the LGB. Basic questions are ignored - How can someone be pro “LGB” while demanding lesbians sleep with men who think they are women? How can someone be pro LGB while convincing fabulous boys to chop their genitals off and be permanently impotent? These things seem overtly cruel to me.
Most people, even conservatives in this country, really don’t give two craps what other consenting adults do in their bedroom or how their relationships function. Most people think for marriage in the eyes of the government means everybody gets a person as long as both are consenting adults not related by blood. At the same time, most people don’t support men, regardless of how they feel, invading private spaces and athletics for women and girls to force us to coddle their delusions at the expense of our own bodily safety. Most parents don’t support groomers no matter the semantics - teachers shouldn’t be talking to kids about sex toys and positions and techniques for any reason ever. Everyone with a moral compass knows child genital mutilation and sterilization is cruel.
Right now the public is being ordered to accept this package deal. As recent polls suggest, the public will increasingly reject the whole package if it’s all or none. I hope people who happen to be LGB reclaim the organizations claiming to represent them before it’s too late.
I'd say it's the last 2, not to mention the trail of nonsense that follows.
This recent article by Kara Dansky (president of Women's Declaration International - USA) on the current status of the Equality Act is very informative:
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/why-i-think-were-much-further-along
You read this section?
KD: "In this case, a doctor had a male patient and the doctor was concerned that his male patient might have prostate cancer. The male patient said, essentially, 'I identify as a woman, therefore I do not have a prostate, therefore I cannot have prostate cancer.' Literally. But the doctor received federal funding under the Act, so he was worried that referring the man for prostate cancer testing would constitute unlawful 'gender identity' discrimination, so he was unable to provide proper treatment to his patient."
A case of life imitating art or vice versa?
"Doctor: Sir ...
Patient: Excuse me Doctor, it's ma'am
Doctor: Ma'am, you have prostate cancer"
https://ifunny.co/picture/doctor-sir-patient-excuse-me-doctor-it-s-ma-am-X4bmSpp69
Absolutely astounding that a rather serious pathology affecting, presumably, a small number of people has had such far-reaching and deleterious effects.
I plan to forward this article to my Congressman. Here's the link i got to work:
https://open.substack.com/pub/colinwright/p/the-us-equality-act-must-be-stopped?r=7x0yn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You can find your Representative and their website by your zip code here:
https://ziplook.house.gov/htbin/findrep_house?ZIP=21218
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
This feels like one of those bills politicians introduce *because* they know it has no chance of becoming law. Not only would it pass neither the House nor the Senate, it would likely not survive Supreme Court review, unless the membership of that court changes drastically, and soon. Given that reality, Rep. Takano, the primary sponsor has every incentive to shoot for the stars. He might as well include free Paramount Plus accounts for every American, right?
I'm kidding. Nobody wants a Paramount Plus membership even if if IS free. ;-)
To be fair, I enjoyed free Paramount Plus. Saw a few enjoyable older (80s/90s) movies on there recently :)
Your view represents a clear line that will protect women from abuse. I understand some legitimate transgender females may feel some discomfort with the restrictions, but the already evident harm to women is horrendous. That is being reported widely in spite of the widespread censorship that is prevalent in many news sources and online. If a man is anatomically a female there could be some accommodation, but only after full anatomical change. Child genital mutilation must stop even if it is misnamed “gender affirmation.”
What is a "legitimate transgender female?" It is very discomfiting when one wants to obliterate the personal boundaries of another human and he gets told "NO!" It happens to pedophiles when we tell them they don't get access to children. Very discomfiting indeed! If one is a man, it's impossible to "anatomically be a female," no matter the size of the plastic boob or the surgically fashioned body cavity. If a woman has her breasts removed due to cancer, she is still "anatomically a female." You are welcome to accommodate these men however you want but you are not going to force me to accommodate them.
The term "legitimate transgender" may be inartfull but does raise a neglected question. In one situation, I have no problem treating an individual as a member of their self identified sex.
acquainted with two M2F trans people. Neither is an activist or nutso. I'd emphasize both transitioned as adults in mid-life with the benefit of considerable psychotherapy followed by a lengthy, gradual, carefully supervised, and thorough transition. Both say it was a great improvement in their lives.
(One tells the story of how her parents were cool with the thought that their son was going to be their daughter; but when she told them she would have to get a new job in a different city, they would were worried. At the time, she had held for considerable time a mid management position with a major news organization. Her Dad said, "Are you sure about this? You know, a good job is hard to find.")
The second situation, however, leaves me confused and conflicted. That's the case of very young children, mostly boys, who persistently and insistantly say they are "really" the opposite sex or that they wish they were. In the few studies I've found that show that the most common outcome for prepubescent kids showing signs and symptoms of gender dysphoria is that they mostly mature into normal gay teens or less commonly, into ordinary straight youngsters. It's that small number of kids in the group described above for whom puberty is not the solution that twist me every which way. I just do not know what to think about them. If there were a reliable way to make a clear diagnosis, I'd probably be okay with medical treatment. As it is, I'm terrified of the high probability of a false positive diagnosis and consequent harmful treatment. And the notorious - and unprofessional, in my opinion - enthusiasm of health care providers and their professional societies for "gender affirming" treatment that scares the bejabbers out of me, especially seeing that "gender non-conforming" behaviors or expressions of same-sex attraction may be taken as signs of GD. This approach is truly the new homophobia; and the medical treatment, simply another iteration of the age-old dream of "conversion therapy", just reframed and renamed.
There is no "neglected question" or any question, for that matter. You told me about 2 men you know who had surgery and dress (I assume) to try and appear like women. They are still men and you are free to refer to them and treat them however you want. I know of no-one advocating control over how you treat these men. That's great it works for them but it has absolutely nothing to do with me or with other women. That's awesome neither is an activist, but again, their needs and actions have zero to do with me and other women. There is no mythical "gender dysphoria," but there are children and some adults bothered by what they believe are role expectations for their sex. Effeminate boys with a father, mother, teacher or other person obsessed with seeing children display stereotypical behavior could negatively affect those children. Growing up I often was on the receiving end of hostility and suspicion for not "acting like a girl." I used to regularly be asked why I hated being a girl. I didn't hate being female, and what was really going on was these people hated that I didn't conform to their stereotype. Now these same lunatics are manipulating children (and adults) and chopping body parts off.
John Robert, I am assuming from your name that you are a man, but with the awareness that user names are not necessarily the user's real name. If you are a man, you are not aware of how much mental space is occupied in women's minds by the fear of being assaulted by men.
Twenty-five percent of U.S. women report having been sexually assaulted. Many of these women are seriously affected for life. The rates of PTSD among women who have been raped are similar to the rates of PTSD among male combat veterans. Women who have not been assaulted have through their whole lives been assailed by media coverage and movies portraying women being attacked by violent men.
Women are vigilant on a daily basis about where it is safe to be at what hour and with whom. We are at least reasonably vigilant, and most women I know carry weapons to ward off potential attackers. Women's restrooms in particular are places where we are usually at a great disadvantage. It's not like we have our pepper spray out and handy, and spraying it in an enclosed small space is not a good idea. Restrooms are ideal places in which to corner someone. They are also places where sex offenders are likely to be maximally turned on.
Other, more obvious weirdos do hang out in women's rest rooms and commit non-violent sex offenses like exposing themselves. This has occurred multiple times in the building where I have my office. The ladies who were victimized by these creeps were shook up and afraid to continue using the rest rooms.
No one should be given the power to decide how much risk a woman has to absorb to accommodate men who insist on using our bathrooms or locker rooms. I find it totally outrageous that trans-identified males come on videos and demand to use women's facilities because they fear being assaulted by men in the men's restrooms. I do agree with them that there is a potential for certain men to get violent in rest rooms, and that includes a certain segment of trans-identified males who assault women.
Let's accommodate to people who prefer the privacy of a one-stall locking bathroom, and otherwise require that the group bathrooms be segregated by biological sex.
Damned buggy edit function. In first paragraph, should be no new paragraph after "... self identified sex" and new sentence starts "I am acquainted...."
Lotta bugs. But you know there's an edit function? See the three dots to the right of the "Reply" indicator/button.
Though once you hit "Save" you have to click on the timestamp or on a comment above it to see it -- another bug.
Oh, yeah. But only when I'm reading in email. Problem is with the Substack app. Whenever I go to reply, the article opens in the Substack app. (Maybe should delete it except for its other features.)
Also child genital mutilation is wrong.
This is America so you have right to state your opinion. I think it’s very rare, but it likely does occur. It’s just not as common as the left is pushing to advance their warped agenda. They shouldn’t be picked on. I do think the bullying “trans” are mostly faking or have other problems.
You're trying to use children as your shield to push hogwash. Male and female is a biological reality, not an opinion. Those men and women with disorders of sexual development are still either male or female. The only ones being attacked, or in your words "picked on," are the women and men stating biological facts, and parents trying to protect their children. The rules are very easy: leave others alone, don't try and mess with and propagandize other people's children, and don't bulldoze and slam a way in on the privacy of the opposite sex. If one is unable to control himself or herself and not mess with people in the above ways, there are consequences.
Yes, we are protecting children and also protecting ourselves. We do have a right to do both of those things.
I was agreeing with you in my above post, not sure you understood that :-)
The only "anatomical change" that would turn an adult human male into an adult human female is if he has his testicles replaced with functional ovaries of his own.
By standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, in that absence itself, sexLESS. See the Glossary here:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
By those criteria, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs. Seems like a high price to be able to dish with the girls ...
Even if a man got a uterus implant and gave birth via c-section, he would not be an adult human female. He would be a man who mimicked gestation and birth.
Agree entirely. Why I emphasized the "functional gonads" -- something that Colin once did himself, more or less:
Colin: "What if I woke up and my reproductive anatomy had somehow inexplicably changed from a functional penis and testes to a functional vagina and ovaries? Would I cease to be male? 100% YES! I would absolutely now be a female."
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1240781010800979968
Though it is maybe moot whether his "functional" applies to both penis & testes, to both vagina and ovaries. Particularly since he, Emma Hilton, and Heather Heying apparently thought, at one point, that non-functional gonads are qualifying criteria:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
A decent enough newspaper but hardly any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal -- which is where that "Gamete competition" article is published:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Though a rather problematic formulation on Colin's part since it might open the door to transwomen getting transplants of non-functioning ovaries -- what tangled webs we weave ...
But a rather "unscientific" perspective on the part of Hilton and Company. I rather doubt any scientific definitions include both potential and actual in the criteria for category membership. A new born child IS a teenager because it has the POTENTIAL to become one? Does not compute ...
You could probably use a remedial course or two in basic reading comprehension.
Hilton and Company clearly tendered a stipulative definition for the sexes:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
My analogy was sort of a reductio ad absurdum, a challenge to their definition. They might just as well argue that a "clock" is still a "clock" even after it's been pounded into rubble, melted down into an ingot, and hammered into bottle openers.
As difficult as I'm sure this will be for you, at least try putting brain in gear before putting mouth in motion.
LoL. 🙄 "Citations needed".
You've clearly come to a gun fight with no more than a penknife, and a rubber one at that.
Try chewing on this -- hardly much better than your folk-biology, but might provide a half way house for the vain, logic-challenged, and scientifically illiterate:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
LoL 🙄 Demented parrot.
Chris, Steersman has been trolling out his personal definition of sex for a long time now, he is best ignored.
🙄 You read that MHR article? Capable of it?
Hardly just my "personal definition".
The number of "legitimate transgender females" in this country or any country is zero.
People who have what you call a "gender identity disorder" need psychotherapy to help them come to terms with biological reality.
Same IMHO for the "queers", "nonbinary", "gender fluid", etc., especially found in abundance among the staff and guests at NPR and NYTimes, especially those covering arts and entertainment.
Yes, but I am growing weary filing complaints whenever i encounter it in any publication. It's becoming just screaming into the wind.
Here's some good news this morning! Market forces at work. I love capitalism!
https://abcnews.go.com/US/corporate-america-slashing-dei-workers-amid-backlash-diversity/story?id=100477952
Here's some pertinent data from Pew Research regarding public opinion on various issues involved trans identity:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/
A couple of questions I thought most important:
1) a large majority of people thought trans people should be protected from discrimination in jobs, housing and other matters. (Note: no discussion of SCOTUS 6 to 3 decision in _Bostock_ in opinion by Gorsuch J., Roberts C.J. and others concurring, that discrimination against trans employees constituted prohibited sex discrimination.)
2) Similarly large majority thought trans athletes should compete on basis of sex "assigned" at birth.
3) Large majority thought "gender" was determined by sex "assigned" at birth.
Hi John,
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this (or if I had, I forgot). As I think you allude to perhaps in #2, given ambiguous language and lack of shared understanding, what we can make of these surveys is not clear.
For example, a nontrivial proportion of people--particularly people in older generations--do not know what transgender mean. Some think it refers to people with DSD conditions or people who have had 'sex reassignment surgery'. If asked, should bepenised males be allowed to share a locker room and shower with females, including minor girls, because they identify as women, how many would say yes? We don't know because this question hasn't been in this type of polling, to my knowledge.
In case not clear, I think transgender people should be protected from discrimination on the basis of being transgender (i.e., that people should not be fired or refused housing on the basis of being transgender). However, I do not think it is discrimination against transgender people to maintain sex-separated sports or have a female-only policy for employees at a female intimates store or for dancers at a Gentlemen's club. In such cases, that would not be discrimination on the basis of being transgender, in my view, but allowable differential treatment on the basis of sex (i.e., gender identity is irrelevant). Thanks again for sharing.
Callie, Took a gander at your website -- this in particular looks interesting:
CB: "In addition, I have a longstanding interest in socio-legal issues around sex and gender, with a particular interest in how gender–as a set of social norms imposed on male and female bodies–limits the full humanity of males and females and constrains female bodies in subordinate (caregiving, passive) roles."
https://callieburt.org/
However, I'm not sure where you think those "gender norms" come from. Some reason to argue -- as does Colin himself -- that "gender" can be taken as a rough synonym for personalities and personality types which might reasonably be seen as the basis for, and source of those "norms". Apropos of which, you might have some interest in a Substack post by feminist philosopher Kathleen Stock who quite reasonably argued that it was "barking (mad)" to want to abolish either gender itself or the norms that follow therefrom:
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
And this was likewise of more than passing interest:
CB: "Finally, I have a burgeoning interest in philosophy of science and critical science studies. .... After all, 'if you do not try to check ideas by trying to debunk them, you are not practicing science' (Rauch 1993)."
Amen to that last part. Apropos of which and of the fact that far too many so-called biologists and philosophers have made a dog's breakfast out of defining the sexes, you might have some particular interest in this essay at the PhilPapers Archive by Paul Griffiths -- University of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- on the topic of "What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Of particular note is his argument that the sexes are transitory states that many members of many anisogamous species, including the human one, pass into and out of over the course of their lives -- hardly "immutable":
PG: "Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes - one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. .... The idea of biological sex is critical for understanding the diversity of life, but ill-suited to the job of determining the social or legal status of human beings as men or women."
Thanks for the interest. I'm familiar with Stock's work and a fan of some of Griffiths' work (including that with Stotz you mention) but not his work on sex. Griffiths is, of course, free to argue that humans pass in and out of sex categories in their lives, and I am free to point to all available evidence which shows that humans, unlike clownfish, do not change sex. :)
To gender: I conceptualize gender as the set of norms imposed on male and female bodies. Stereotypes and norms around how males and females should be is "gender". This is conception of gender is *wholly compatible* with the position that there are sex differences in personality and behavior that are rooted in biology. Here's the difference:
Gender: Females should be passive, submissive, caregiving, not competitive, etc.
Sex: Females are, as a group, more nurturing than males, as a group.
Cheers.
De nada; definitely some food for thought there. 🙂
However, neither I nor Griffiths are arguing that humans can change sex, only that "male" and "female" are not exhaustive categories -- many members of many species, including the human one, are neither male nor female -- they're sexless.
But, with all due respect, it seems that you're starting off on the wrong foot, not really being willing to "debunk" unscientific "theories", not actually "practicing science" 🙂. There really is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female" -- the latter used to mean "she who suckles":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
By which I guess Jenner & his ilk might qualify, even if the milk is probably unfit for human consumption.
The point is that there are no definitions for the sexes that qualify as gospel truth -- they weren't in the first dictionary that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. We can define those categories any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But those based on functional gonads as the sine qua non, as the necessary & sufficient conditions for category membership, are more or less standard and universal -- see the Glossary in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
An article which Griffiths cites and refers to.
As for "gender", it seems that your definitions or conceptualizations only encompass the more pejorative and inaccurate stereotypes. Stock quite reasonably argues for more socially useful and accurate ones.
Major part of the problem, as Colin emphasized in that tweet of his, is that pretty much every last man, woman, and otherkin has a different definition for "gender" and "gender identity". Seems that progress will be contingent on finding the most scientifically justified one, and thereby the most useful one. Some reason to argue that that is one which encompasses both stereotypes and the personalities and personality types from which they're derived.
Apropos of which, you might have some interest in Substacker Lee Jussim's article on stereotypes:
"Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology"
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
Those stereotypes aren't cut from whole cloth.
To the first, one cannot do all science all the time. I find the evidence that human sex is binary to be compelling, and, if presented with strong evidence to the contrary, I will revisit my understandings. I have not seen any evidence or strong arguments to the contrary. That some people have conditions that impairs the developmental pathway for males and females does not make sex transient or mutable, in my view.
How people in earlier eras understood male-female, and the etymology of the words, have no bearing on my understanding of human sex today.
We agree there are many definitions of gender, and I have written on the topic. That is the one I believe most useful, and I adopt (and define) in my work. I agree that the term is muddled almost to the point of uselessness in the mainstream and much of science.
The extent to which stereotypes are accurate is irrelevant to my definition of gender as "norms" or the utility of such a concept of gender. Whether 99% of females are naturally caregiving and submissive or 56% is irrelevant to my (sociological) conception of "gender", which includes that females tend to be expected to be caregiving and submissive. Moreover, males and females have never existed outside of society so it's not possible to say how much of female "caregiving and submissiveness" is due to biology versus society. They are intertwined. I thought I made clear in my previous, that I was not arguing that "gender" is cut from whole cloth; so to be clear, I do not believe it is. :)
Callie: "... one cannot do all science all the time."
Something of a jest on my part. 🙂
Callie: "I find the evidence that human sex is binary to be compelling ..."
I am most certainly not disputing "binary", only that it's not exhaustive. IF religion encompassed only Christianity and Islam THEN that's a binary -- but it's not exhaustive because there are those who are neither, who are atheists.
But that claim of "binary" is kind of contingent on how one DEFINES the sex categories. Clear evidence of literally millions of anisogamous species that are characterized by those who can reproduce BECAUSE they can produce either large gametes or small ones. That is the basis for the definition as a binary. You might have some interest in the "science" of taxonomy:
Wikipedia: "Taxonomy ... the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
The shared characteristics of producing large and small gametes -- shared by millions of species and billions if not trillions of members of them -- is the basis for that naming and defining "male" & "female".
Callie: "That some people have conditions that impairs the developmental pathway for males and females ..."
There is absolutely nothing at all in any of the standard biological definitions about "developmental pathways". That is little more than folk-biology at best if not outright Lysenkoism. See the Molecular Human Reproduction article:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Callie: "... so it's not possible to say how much of female 'caregiving and submissiveness' is due to biology versus society. "
Agreed: nature vs nurture.
But if you agree those stereotypes are not cut from whole cloth then I think you're agreeing that what you call particular genders are exhibited by actual people -- ergo, their personalities are, in part at least, those genders. Hence the justification for "gender" to encompass both.
However, I'll concede there's some "murkiness", some scope for misperceptions, for "honest people disagreeing". Analogously, there are many measures of populations -- averages for example -- that only a few or limited number of members actually exhibit. For example, in a population of heights of {62, 64, 66, 68} [inches], the average is 65, but no member of it is of that height.
Averages are just abstractions as are the sexes; no one will ever do an autopsy on any of us and find, much less measure the weights and volumes of, our "males" and "females". The words "male" and "female" are just labels that denote membership in particular categories, membership in which is contingent on paying the requisite "membership dues" -- i.e., having functional gonads of either of two types.
Live and Let Live Act
Given that:
- In reality gender isn't part of reality.
- Ghosts, genders, and goblins are imaginary.
- Sex, stereotypes, and shaming are real.
- Everything else is fiction, and affectation.
- We each are given the precious gift of our sex which we live with for all of our days…
We have the right to the freedom of pursuit of happiness with the unalterable gift of our sex.
A child has the right to grow to adulthood with their sex without intervention of adults.
We have the freedom to speak about our sex without speech being compelled by others.
We have the freedom to choose with whom we wish to assemble on the basis of our sex.
We have the right to intimate privacy which respects the needs our sex.
We have the right to live without compelled exposure to the intimate sex of others.
We have the right to share sexual affection without being compelled to do so against our will.
…Time is up. Subject is settled. Move on.
Sufeitzy: "Reality is that gender isn't part of reality."
Maybe a clever quip, but I really don't think it holds much water. At least if one defines "gender" and "gender identity" -- as many quite reasonably do -- as a rough synonym for personality and personality types. Which I would assume you would consider a "part of reality". But for several examples, Colin Wright more or less does so, or he at least accepts that that is a common definition:
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
And your good buddy Chris Fox more or less does so himself:
CF: "Sex: male or female. Biology
Gender: personality; loosely correlated with 'sex,' ...."
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-gender-revolution-comes-for-biology/comment/17807022
So any personality trait that differentially correlates with sex -- any sexually dimorphic trait -- might be said to constitute a separate axis on a multi-dimensional spectrum of gender.
And see this Note and the included post by biological psychologist Frederick Prete:
FP: "... there is a need for a thorough examination of what "identity" means from a psychological point of view, and the complex interacting factors that shape it. .... Clearly, people do have 'gender identities' just like they have identities pertaining to other societal roles and self-perceptions."
https://substack.com/@everythingisbiology/note/c-17943155
As Frederick argues at some length, the problem is not gender/gender-identity themselves, but the dog's breakfast that many have made out of the concept, and their misuses of it.
More particularly, it is less a problem that, say, some boy has a "feminine gender identity", that he has a "feminine gender" -- at least on some of those axes -- than that those misuses and misunderstandings leads others into thinking and arguing and tricking him into thinking that he should thereby mangle his genitalia to more closely match those of typical females. An egregious medical scandal, a crime of the century.
Fox: "And you have the unmitigated temerity to cast yourself as some sort of oracle on scientific truth."
I'm not doing anything of the fucking sort. For virtually anything I say I provide a link to and quote of something in the way of an authoritative source who's saying about the same thing.
You may blather on -- as you're wont to do -- about "argument from authority", but the only "authority" you ever even allude to is no better than the man-in-the-street. A scientific illiterate at best if not a "cruel bumpkin of the Middle Ages" or "his pal, the naked bushman leaping around his tribal fire."
No doubt many "authorities" aren't worth a pinch of coonshit, much less their salaries -- Feynman said as much, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts":
http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
But that doesn't mean that all experts, all authorities can or should be dismissed, only that what they say is open to dispute or disagreement -- if one has the goods. Which Feynman more or less emphasizes is the case.
And if one doesn't have those goods -- you, for the most part, at least on anything to do with sex and gender -- then one is obliged to accept what they say, at least provisionally. Just shooting yourself in the feet to say otherwise -- being charitable.
Fox: " 'Gender' has been adulterated into uselessness, and since it's so proximate to 'personality,' we should expunge it."
More or less agree with your premise -- i.e., "uselessness" -- but the conclusion doesn't in any way follow therefrom. Just something you've pulled out of your arse. And that apparently because the definition of "gender" as synonymous with personalities and personality types conflicts with what is little more than your (mis)understanding of folk-biology, if not a pile of anti-scientific claptrap.
You might want to reflect on something -- not that you seem much capable of that -- from something in the way of an expert on emergence, Melanie Mitchell, from her "Complexity, A Guided Tour":
Mitchell: “Any perusal of the history of science will show that the lack of a universally accepted definition of a central term is more common than not. …. Science often makes progress by inventing new terms to describe incompletely understood phenomena; these terms are gradually refined as the science matures and the phenomena become more completely understood.” [pg. 95]
https://www.amazon.ca/Complexity-Guided-Tour-Melanie-Mitchell/dp/0199798109
No doubt that a great deal of rather toxic "bathwater" has been produced in "bathing" the "baby" of "gender". But it might be wise to not throw the latter out with the former.
🙄 :roll-eyes:
Hardly takes much "expertise" to simply note, as he did, that:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes."
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
But curious then that you seem rather "reluctant" to accept the "expertise" of "authorities" Colin, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying in their stipulative definitions for the sexes they had published in the UK Times. Which, I might emphasize, say diddly-squat about any chromosomes. At least as far as I can see; maybe you'll have better luck ... 🙄
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the posts published here that explicitly accept -- more or less -- the same definitions I've been quoting that were published in the "authoritative" MHR.
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the definitions published in the "authoritative" Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441
Wonder why that might be ... inquiring minds and all that ... 🤔🙄
This whole creepy mess with government trying to cram gender id down the citizens’ unwilling throats began in spring 2016 when the Obama admin issued the “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students.” It was all there -- guys picking their own restrooms, lockers, showers, deciding that they could play as a girl on any sports team without question, forcing use of wrong pronouns on others, stay in girls’ rooms on overnight field trips. Of course, parents were not to know that any of this was going on (not their business, you know).
The infamous Letter was distributed to all US Public schools, K-12 and publicly funded colleges and universities, with the expectation that the policies would be universally implemented by the fall. Otherwise, the schools were threatened with federal funding for noncompliance with the new policies.
A federal judge struck it down just before it went into effect in August. He didn’t have to look far. The Obama admin overlooked having the policy-making letter undergo a public comment period, required of all bureaucratically implemented procedures. The Administrative Procedure Act dictates a public comment period, and it was glaringly, very incompetently overlooked.
The Biden admin is trying to undo TIX and women’s rights again. This time, the APA was followed assiduously, garnering over 100,000 comments, but very much against it. A state in a similar situation simply ignored the negative comments and did as they pleased. Then, of course, there’s the EA, and they don’t have to care about the APA.
That’s just a very brief rundown on where we happen to be now. Face it, what they keep trying to do against us outrageous, abominable, unacceptable. The only way they cease and desist is to keep fighting them and defeat them in every venue and on every level (recalling Churchill’s stirring ‘never surrender’ speech). There are plenty of other things that will no doubt come along, but right now we have to drive this cult into oblivion.
Where are the feminists?
Serious question.
I was banned by the WSJ because I responded to a commenter's remark that he doubted the validity of information that underage kids can access "gender affirmative care" without their parents' knowledge or permission. I explained that it is easy for a state to arrange this situation, because the state decides the age of consent, can also decide what insurance has to cover, and can also allocate public funds to paying for medicalized transitions. WSJ told me my comment was censored because it "didn't meet community standards."
The senior age feminists I know are all liberal Democrats. When I see them they are always upset about Donald Trump or exultant about the latest show trial about him. Apparently their media cover Donald Trump, the Ukraine war, and run smear campaigns against DeSantis and Musk. That's about it.
"You'll get an email with the subject "Your account on Medium" signed by "Roger (he/him).""
LOL!!
I would love to know what the WSJ "community standard" consists of. I suppose the community is ten or so 22 year old they/thems with green hair, and the truth is beneath their standard. These people need to be sentenced to 100 years of nonstop ridicule.
Underground, trying to stay employable and trying to keep their kids employable.
Thank you for the resources!
Even if a women is not an active member of any of these organizations, any woman that went against the phrase "transwomen are women" after 2016 came under attack.
Even very prominent feminists such as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie have been more or less cancelled since 2017 on social media for refusing to repeat the mantra "transwomen are women".
So that's where feminists are: cancelled.
The only non-cancelled feminists are the ones that lick the boots of the transagenda and the ones that stay silent.
Have been listening to Helen Joyce's book on Audible.
Thanks for the pointer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'll have a look at her website.
Let's keep things simple. We don't need the "Equality Act" or any "Equality Act" at all.
Republicans have been stupid and asleep allowing hate crime laws to proliferate. That was the beginning of a Pandora's Box of problems as it established a mindset that we can criminalize the guessed emotions of others (because one can never really know the emotions of others). The absurdity of woke just builds on that great mistake. Instead of debating if we need to oppose this Equality Act to mainstream choice of sexual preference and fashion over biology, we need to go on the offensive with national legislation that makes all hate-crime laws illegal. It is an illiberal concept that should never have been accepted in this country given our First Amendment.
Yes, it's all the Republicans fault for not stopping the Democrats. Not the Democrats for proposing this insanity in the first place.
*eye roll*
There is no such thing as hate crimes and a "hate crime" is not terrorism.
If animus towards a particular group was a factor in the crime, it can be addressed in the sentencing stage.
I am opposed to hate-crime laws because they require mind reading, which (according to Objective Reality) is impossible.
You cannot accurately assess the emotions of a person from the words they say. But it makes no difference as we should never criminalize emotions.
If someone materially harms another while saying words deemed to be hateful by some, the crime should be the material harm not the words. If someone says words deemed hateful by some but does no material harm (and no, the impact of the words is not material harm) then there is no crime. If someone says words consider slander or libel, then sue in civil court.
You are an idiot.
Killing a stranger for being _________ (fill in the blanks) does not mean hate. It means murder. And murder does send waves of terror. But again, it is not hate because nobody can know what emotions another is feeling. Even if a person says "I hate you", you cannot assume it is really hate. My kids have said that to me many times growing up when they were told no about something. And at times I bet they were so angry that they had dreams about causing me pain.
If someone kills someone else, it is murder and should be prosecuted and tried as murder. That is it. It is clear.
If you add "hate" enhancements then Pandora's Box is opened for believing that emotional minds can be read... and thus hate crime laws can be exploited by people with an agenda to get revenge or to cause other forms of harm.
I have a gay friend that agrees with me. He once explained that he probably hates people that hate gays more than they hate gays. But he said he should be free to hate as so should they. It isn't the emotion of hate that is the problem, it is the material harm that someone would do to another. Frankly, I say welcome the verbal hate attacks as it probably diffuses physical acts that would otherwise occur.
There is no reason why there can't be a couple of one person/any-gender restrooms to accommodate transgender people. I personally know a butch woman who won't use public restrooms because other women tend to call her out as a man in the women's rest room. There aren't very many people out there who are "really trans" anyway. It's not as disruptive to accommodate them as it is to impose their special issues on everyone else.
The Seattle airport (at least until I moved from there in 2019) had the single-use handicapped and family restrooms be "all gender" friendly. For large places with such facilities, this seems acceptable.
For smaller businesses, which have sex-based restrooms, this is not feasible, imo. I think the work that needs to be done is make sure that people are safe in their sex-based facilities. The only attacks on transwomen in restrooms that I've seen is the one case where the transwoman was attacked by a male for using the women's restroom in some story a few years ago that was a bit weird, and I don't remember the details.
I'm surprised to hear that your friend is routinely called out in the women's restroom. We are usually able to accurately identify females versus males (except when the former has undergone CSHT).
Unless single stall, I don't want all-gender restrooms. Even in places that have unisex single stall bathrooms, in my experience, the males gravitate to one and the females to the other. A local middle school went "all gender", and it was a mess: literally and for the girls who were taunted by the boys on occasion. Just my opinion.
I forgot to add that I was proposing private, locking, single stall unisex bathrooms. One of the grocery stores I use has multiple stall "all gender" bathrooms. I can't imagine very many people feeling comfortable with that; it's not normal in our culture to mix sexes in bathrooms except for heterosexual couples. I am curious regarding what demographics use that bathroom. Young people here in Portland might feel pressured to use it to signal that they are complying with gender ideology, but I would predict that since that 4 stall bathroom went woke it is less utilized than the segregated bathrooms. Who knows what happens next? Maybe some states will require that the stalls no longer have doors.
I agree that the first priority is to preserve and protect women's safety and existing rights as "women."
Many masculine women pass easily as men if there is just a casual glance, like you get from a startled woman who is already in a restroom. The experience of being "called out in women's restrooms" has in my own experience been mentioned multiple times by women in online discussion groups, and the subject was brought up like others will know what they mean. For example, one commenter said she wanted to discuss how (whatever issue we were on) affects "the kind of woman who gets called out in public restrooms." (This site had nothing to do with "gender" styles, and was not a gay site).
In addition to the woman I mentioned in my post, there are a few other women in my social circle who when they meet strangers are frequently or consistently read as men. In the case of the woman I mentioned first, the observers consistently and instantly refer to her as "Sir" and "he" and they don't usually come to recognize their error. The other two women I know who pass beyond a stranger's first glance have masculine, athletic body configurations, masculine body movements and gestures, and are both 5'9" or more tall.
You referred to CSHT. I don't know what that is.
CSHT:
Maybe "Canadian Society of Hand Therapists" ? 😉🙂
More probably: Cross-Sex Hormone Therapy
Maybe somewhat apropos of which, been reading a few stories about Chaz Bono who seems happy with "his" transition, though at the time of the article he hadn't had bottom surgery:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/fashion/08CHAZ.html?unlocked_article_code=En7_1zgwo1BonTsKEpX4acqNYa8dICTbU4MFCsj-Pxuc2di_8Gs-zv3484XNbbQrcLqMgNlfuOq-JU_a9LGPDnvaV9FlI2OhSSOfuX3_WOE27lgZMOfX5LayIdDcc5UBx9QVtlRZSMsJKrvsSwByE35Hba13Z2FtkGjgAGA075_I0AsEUw94FWjfpr6hmaQQ2VCt04NhYFVSW4m9EZIfdbqmhz-JR8Y4E08g9eTnibNaaYNaCjpao-HwbmqOSaJta3OvGdounoSxDefL9dBsUwQOq_KFsP8bU5zh8HbVzlfIhQ-PwxNSGLjY1w-lZs0a&smid=url-share
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/02/15/new-york-times-called-out-for-coverage-of-transgender-people/
Still question the misinformation, euphemisms, and outright lies that are part of the phenomenon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_transition
Yes, you are correct. I would like to find a way to make the businesses pay the cost, not the taxpayers. The local "clean food" grocer converted all their bathrooms to "all gender," and pasted signs on the walls everywhere you look that scold customers in advance before they have a chance to complain: "If you think that someone is using the 'wrong restroom', change your attitude. Trans and non-binary people have the right to use any restroom they choose without having to be afraid." A more extensive paragraph of lecturing was included, but I didn't read it. Same thing happened when I took a friend to the ER. The hospital bathrooms all had signs outside the doors with a similar message, not quite as overtly hostile.
Actually, I haven't gone back to that store even though it is the closest source of high quality produce. I was very turned off by the sign scolds, whoever they are (probably more of the twenty-somethings with green hair). But here in Portland it is not always possible to boycott all the woke businesses, because there aren't many resources here that are not captured. The ideology push and identity signaling is overwhelming in many locally owned small businesses. I find this to be really bizarre behavior. It reminds me of teen age gang members who are blasting out their identities in a continually "loud" way, through their clothing, their hand gestures, their music, etc.
Reading about EA makes my head explode. Can we ever go back to books with Jane and Dick as characters, and not be confused and or outraged?
Thank you Colin Wright for your diligence on this sham being perpretated on us.