I read this aloud to my husband and got choked-up in tears three times before I could finish. A motley crew indeed. I think that speaks to a common humanity though, doesn't it? Like, even with our differences, there are just some things that evoke a united "Oh, hell no!" when we discover serious, horrifying, harm being done to the vulnerable.
Thank you, Genspect, for being a steady voice of reason and compassion. Thank you for working to prevent further harm and for caring about those already harmed by this ideology.
> "Stella O’Malley and about 95 percent of the people attending Genspect would like to see the end of the ‘gender revolution’ and the restoration of sanity in medicine, schools, sports, and spaces. They want to slay the dragon that eats children."
A worthy objective. Though one might suggest, as a modus operandi in that "quest", a reflection on Sun Tzu's "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated".
And, offhand, I would say that most people rallying around the Genspect flag and under its umbrella do not quite understand that "gender" -- as separate from "sex" -- is largely the creation of feminism in the mid 1900s:
Wikipedia: In 1945, Madison Bentley defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex". Simone de Beauvoir's 1949 book The Second Sex has been interpreted as the beginning of the distinction between sex and gender in feminist theory ...
Something of rabbit-hole or bottom-less pit as to how and why feminism created that dichotomy. Though it seems that it was largely to emancipate the proletariat, at least the female half of it. As to what might be the salient aspects of that "distinction", feminism's "bifurcation" there seems to be that, to a first approximation, "sex" encompasses reproductive biology, and "gender" encompasses various sexually dimorphic personality and behavioural traits. For example, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] article on "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender"
SEP: "1.1 Biological determinism:
Provisionally: ‘sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features); ‘gender’ denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behaviour or identity).
2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality:
Nancy Chodorow (1978; 1995) has criticised social learning theory as too simplistic to explain gender differences (see also Deaux & Major 1990; Gatens 1996). Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
Of particular note there is feminism's link of gender to identity -- so maybe that is where a goodly portion of the blame for the whole transgender clusterfuck should be laid. But apart from that, there are clear differences in "feminine and masculine personalities" that qualify as objective correlates that undergird that definition for gender.
So far, so good, although one might wonder as to why personality differences between men and women have much if any bearing on various social policies. Be that as it may, it would seem that a great many rallying around the Genspect flag and under its umbrella reject even that more or less scientifically tenable distinction between sex and gender. For example, consider this earlier piece from the author of the current one, Matt Osborne:
" 'Gender Identity' Is A New Gnostic Gospel; Not quite a religion, but glomming on to yours":
No doubt there there are some rather "woo-ish" aspects to the "gender identity hypothesis" -- notably in a quite unscientific and largely subjective set of definitions for the sexes. But throwing the proverbial baby out with bathwater doesn't seem likely to be all that productive.
And sadly there are many others in the same camp -- a house so badly divided is unlikely to stand, much less have much luck slaying any dragons.
I read this aloud to my husband and got choked-up in tears three times before I could finish. A motley crew indeed. I think that speaks to a common humanity though, doesn't it? Like, even with our differences, there are just some things that evoke a united "Oh, hell no!" when we discover serious, horrifying, harm being done to the vulnerable.
Thank you, Genspect, for being a steady voice of reason and compassion. Thank you for working to prevent further harm and for caring about those already harmed by this ideology.
Perhaps years from now, there will be a Genspect reunion and we can all come together and reflect on how we defeated hell on Earth.
God is on our side and we will kill the dragon
I think there are more than a few "fatal flaws" on Genspect's side that makes that something of a toss-up.
See:
https://genspect.substack.com/p/we-may-never-pass-this-way-again/comment/164147850
The connections I have made with amazing people I have met at conferences will last the rest of my life.
> "Stella O’Malley and about 95 percent of the people attending Genspect would like to see the end of the ‘gender revolution’ and the restoration of sanity in medicine, schools, sports, and spaces. They want to slay the dragon that eats children."
A worthy objective. Though one might suggest, as a modus operandi in that "quest", a reflection on Sun Tzu's "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated".
And, offhand, I would say that most people rallying around the Genspect flag and under its umbrella do not quite understand that "gender" -- as separate from "sex" -- is largely the creation of feminism in the mid 1900s:
Wikipedia: In 1945, Madison Bentley defined gender as the "socialized obverse of sex". Simone de Beauvoir's 1949 book The Second Sex has been interpreted as the beginning of the distinction between sex and gender in feminist theory ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#As_distinct_from_sex
Something of rabbit-hole or bottom-less pit as to how and why feminism created that dichotomy. Though it seems that it was largely to emancipate the proletariat, at least the female half of it. As to what might be the salient aspects of that "distinction", feminism's "bifurcation" there seems to be that, to a first approximation, "sex" encompasses reproductive biology, and "gender" encompasses various sexually dimorphic personality and behavioural traits. For example, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] article on "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender"
SEP: "1.1 Biological determinism:
Provisionally: ‘sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features); ‘gender’ denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behaviour or identity).
2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality:
Nancy Chodorow (1978; 1995) has criticised social learning theory as too simplistic to explain gender differences (see also Deaux & Major 1990; Gatens 1996). Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/#toc
Of particular note there is feminism's link of gender to identity -- so maybe that is where a goodly portion of the blame for the whole transgender clusterfuck should be laid. But apart from that, there are clear differences in "feminine and masculine personalities" that qualify as objective correlates that undergird that definition for gender.
So far, so good, although one might wonder as to why personality differences between men and women have much if any bearing on various social policies. Be that as it may, it would seem that a great many rallying around the Genspect flag and under its umbrella reject even that more or less scientifically tenable distinction between sex and gender. For example, consider this earlier piece from the author of the current one, Matt Osborne:
" 'Gender Identity' Is A New Gnostic Gospel; Not quite a religion, but glomming on to yours":
https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/gender-identity-is-a-new-gnostic
No doubt there there are some rather "woo-ish" aspects to the "gender identity hypothesis" -- notably in a quite unscientific and largely subjective set of definitions for the sexes. But throwing the proverbial baby out with bathwater doesn't seem likely to be all that productive.
And sadly there are many others in the same camp -- a house so badly divided is unlikely to stand, much less have much luck slaying any dragons.
A very important distinction: whether a movement aims to achieve its mission, or extend its lifespan.