“Most people who believe in transgenderism recognize men and women exist, but they believe their sexed bodies are inconsequential.”
I’ve been following a few popular trans activists. I think they would take exception to this claim in a telling way. I think they would roll their eyes, exasperatingly sigh and say “no one is saying sexed bodies are inconsequential” and then add something like “that’s the reason why people who know they are in the wrong body must change it and why they are literally, even biologically, the gender they know they are.”
The claim gets more complicated the more you push. They would say it’s not a gendered soul but suggest it’s a type of unobservable intersex situation. They’d say they are biological and they are a woman so they are a biological woman. And science supports their view and not the Gender Critical View which believes “in an unchangeable gendered soul that stays with the body even after surgery”. Arguing that sex is a cluster of observable traits that you can change to conform with your identity.
I think the problem is social constructivism. Or autistic thinking. Or nominalism. It makes people’s minds spin and I think they give up in confusion when faced with someone who sounds smart making no sense by changing the meaning of words in front of your eyes.
I think you're right on with the observation that autistic thinking is a big factor. Autistic thinking and the the drift of the concept of identity from actions and relationships to feelings, which must be externally validated. How many digital natives think of themselves as avatars that are crafted and performed?
An interesting article. I thought the clownfish example had fallen by the wayside but it reared its head in a conversation I was having with a true believer on Facebook a couple of weeks or so ago. There are people out there who believe we are fish. I really don't know what to think.
Indeed, the trans activists arguements are almost comical: "They argue intersex conditions and clownfish prove multiple genders exist. They overlook that humans still only produce male or female gametes, regardless of rare birth defects. They also cite anomalies like clownfish and seahorses to bolster their case. Yet, despite which fish lays the eggs, these species remain male or female. Plus, trans activists forget a basic fact: humans aren’t fish."
I appreciate this comment. I read a book called Evolution’s Rainbow written by a Trans scientist named Joan Roughgarden. It’s free online.
The section on animals and gender is amazing! Somehow the author failed to discuss that the diversity of genders - example - 3 males, 2 females
from side blotched lizard - still involved unique reproductive strategies and observable physical characteristics. So it’s perfectly possible for humans to have more genders but we’d need to be able to clearly see them in an observable reproductive context. Also the rates among animals with more than 2 genders are much higher than the 1% of trans. And, of course, it’s gender NOT sex. Among animals, these are still males or females.
“Most people who believe in transgenderism recognize men and women exist, but they believe their sexed bodies are inconsequential.”
I’ve been following a few popular trans activists. I think they would take exception to this claim in a telling way. I think they would roll their eyes, exasperatingly sigh and say “no one is saying sexed bodies are inconsequential” and then add something like “that’s the reason why people who know they are in the wrong body must change it and why they are literally, even biologically, the gender they know they are.”
The claim gets more complicated the more you push. They would say it’s not a gendered soul but suggest it’s a type of unobservable intersex situation. They’d say they are biological and they are a woman so they are a biological woman. And science supports their view and not the Gender Critical View which believes “in an unchangeable gendered soul that stays with the body even after surgery”. Arguing that sex is a cluster of observable traits that you can change to conform with your identity.
I think the problem is social constructivism. Or autistic thinking. Or nominalism. It makes people’s minds spin and I think they give up in confusion when faced with someone who sounds smart making no sense by changing the meaning of words in front of your eyes.
I think you're right on with the observation that autistic thinking is a big factor. Autistic thinking and the the drift of the concept of identity from actions and relationships to feelings, which must be externally validated. How many digital natives think of themselves as avatars that are crafted and performed?
An interesting article. I thought the clownfish example had fallen by the wayside but it reared its head in a conversation I was having with a true believer on Facebook a couple of weeks or so ago. There are people out there who believe we are fish. I really don't know what to think.
Indeed, the trans activists arguements are almost comical: "They argue intersex conditions and clownfish prove multiple genders exist. They overlook that humans still only produce male or female gametes, regardless of rare birth defects. They also cite anomalies like clownfish and seahorses to bolster their case. Yet, despite which fish lays the eggs, these species remain male or female. Plus, trans activists forget a basic fact: humans aren’t fish."
I appreciate this comment. I read a book called Evolution’s Rainbow written by a Trans scientist named Joan Roughgarden. It’s free online.
The section on animals and gender is amazing! Somehow the author failed to discuss that the diversity of genders - example - 3 males, 2 females
from side blotched lizard - still involved unique reproductive strategies and observable physical characteristics. So it’s perfectly possible for humans to have more genders but we’d need to be able to clearly see them in an observable reproductive context. Also the rates among animals with more than 2 genders are much higher than the 1% of trans. And, of course, it’s gender NOT sex. Among animals, these are still males or females.
This is very good thank you - spot on