excellent explanation. This is what I wish I could say to my kids, their teachers, and every single person sucked into this absurd nightmare we are living in.
No such thing as "trans." It's a fake, made up propaganda term to sell body dissociation (with the goal of transhumanism), and drugs/surgeries to vulnerable adults and kids. The idea that SOME people can benefit from having body parts removed, genital mutiation, taking drugs to destroy their bodies from the inside out, losing their sexual function, becoming sterile, and creating iatrogenic illness is completely ridiculous. If no child is "born in the wrong body," at what point does the mismatch happen? On their 18th birthday? It's all a psyops pretying on the vulnerable.
Use of the grammatical term gender for sex was started by pedophile plastic surgeon Dr John Money, who performed first sex "change" surgery on David Reimer, a twin who's penis was damaged during circumcision. David was raised as a girl and sexually abused by Money, along with his twin brother . When his parents told him he was born a boy, he returned to living as a boy. Unfortunately, David Reimer and his twin ended up committing suicide. After David Reimer's surgery, Dr Money published papers about changing sex, but he used the word gender, presumably as he knew one cannot change one's genetic code, which determines one's sex. Ergo, gender as a replacement for the word sex was started by a pedophile doctor, with a monetary interest in promulgating a false notion. This is pure Newspeak, and I don't accept it.
Use of the grammatical term gender for sex was started by pedophile plastic surgeon Dr John Money, who performed first sex "change" surgery on David Reimer, a twin who's penis was damaged during circumcision. David was raised as a girl and sexually abused by Money, along with his twin brother . When his parents told him he was born a boy, he returned to living as a boy. Unfortunately, David Reimer and his twin ended up committing suicide. After David Reimer's surgery, Dr Money published papers about changing sex, but he used the word gender, presumably as he knew one cannot change one's genetic code, which determines one's sex. Ergo, gender as a replacement for the word sex was started by a pedophile doctor, with a monetary interest in promulgating a false notion. This is pure Newspeak, and I don't accept it.
This article was, as my kids would say, fire. So good at calling “gender identity” what it is--a wholly manufactured fiction.
The author wrote, “Gender Identity is rather unstable”. This is a line that so many activists would likely call out, but it is actually ensconced in the fantasy of gender ideology through the identity of “gender fluid”.
This essay has me asking the "what is a woman?" question, but from a different perspective.
The progressive answer to this is "a woman is anyone who says she's a woman." This is nonsesensical in that it's circular, but this is really the answer you get from progressives today.
Conservatives always paint this as a "we got you!" moment, but the conservative answer of "a biological human female" doesn't really satisfy either.
"A woman is someone with a vagina? " Surgery can take care of that.
"A woman is someone with XX chromosomes?" This is "female" in a scientific sense, but it seems pretty absurd to ask your date to give you a DNA sample to see if she's a woman. (It's also a little too Gattaca-esque, for my taste.)
"A woman is a human who can produce children?" Having a hysterectomy makes you not a woman? Surely we've gotten over the "barren womb" stigma by now.
We have a pretty diverse group here. It tends to skew liberal but not progressive, and there are some conservatives (among them, me.) So I'm curious how others would answer this. If it's not reproductive ability or behavior or DNA or outward physical characteristics (or maybe it is?)... what is it that defines someone as a "woman" or as a "man"?
A surgical wound created in the groin is not a vagina. You do know that a vagina is a real thing, right? A real organ that cannot be created by chopping apart a penis and relocating it into a hole for penetration/pleasure of others? Do you know that this surgical wound is constantly trying to heal itself and close, and requires frequent often painful, dilation with an object, often several times a day, in order for it not to close up as any wound wants to? And it still often does, even if the man works very hard at keeping it from healing and closing. It has ZERO of the functionality of a vagina. And I'm not going into the complication rate, the nature of the complications, and how it's not uncommon that this mutilative surgery leaves a man with zero sensation, as well as no ability to be penetrated. So these men can be left with ZERO sexual response after genital mutilation. Surgery cannot make a man into a simulacrum of a woman. Stop being ridiculous and learn the facts. I'm a leftist, btw, an LGB activist, and this is gay eugenics. It's a sex lobotomy. And I think you know very well what a woman is. And no men are women/vice versa.
I think you misunderstood that line. My point on that line was "is a woman a set of outward physical characteristics?" Surgery can create a set of outward physical characteristics; it can make a man LOOK LIKE a woman. I agree with you that doesn't make him into a woman, but that doesn't get around the problem.
I'm not talking about a functional definition. We all know functionally what a "woman" is save the most ardent, trans-cult lunatics. But the trans cult has been able to get away with its lunacy in part because we struggle to find a systemic, legalistic definition ourselves. The cultists DO have one: "a woman is anyone who says she's a woman." It's not unreasonable to ask those of us who say that's self-evidently crazy what our own definition is. It is that sort of legalistic definition with which I'm struggling.
Each of the ways I listed above cause problems somehow. Even the DNA method -- if someone has been surgically modified, why can't they use a women's locker room? It actually would make less sense for them to use a male locker room -- they have what appears to be a vagina! (Yes, I know it's not really, but that's not the point in that case.) However, if surgical modification is the only definition, then modified males can compete on women's sports teams, which is obviously unjust. I hope you see my point. Each method creates a different set of problems. Since this is a war being fought primarily on a linguistic battlefield, our side had better figure out a definition that works.
I just disagree. A man who has his penis repurposed/relocated to another place in his body still HAS a penis. It's still there, as are all the other characteristics that make a man appear, and in all other ways BE, male.
This ridiculous idea that a castrated man resembles or is more like a woman than a man is what you are promoting, and I ask you to JUST STOP. I really don't think you yourself are taking into account your eyes, ears, and evolutionary sensabilities that allow you to clock a male -- often from a hundred feet in dim light. And you are discounting that women and girls are as attuned or even more attuned, for the purposes of safety and reproduction, to whom is male and whom is female.
It's just ridiculous that you would continue to make this specious argument as if it holds any water rather than debunking it and fighting against it, as it defies logic. A man who has had his penis repurposed does not "blend in" to a group of women, and if you use your brain you would not be claiming he would.
You are promoting silly, nonsense ideas that hold no water, except that people like you continue to spout them which then encourages other people to spout them. I understand that these are commonly held ideas, that a man who has had some of his penile tissue inverted looks enough like a woman to "pass," or to be grandfathered into womanhood, for some people. But it's a stupid, baseless argument and the fact that you are citing it as somewhat legit is a bad look for you.
I define woman as one who's DNA has two XX genes, which determines one's sex. Since that is how I define it, I don't accept a trans woman as a woman. I would be delighted if they would accept the designator trans woman, or transgender woman. Doesn't ask how one urinates; simply requests that they accept that a majority of women don't want you in their locker rooms, bathrooms, and changing rooms if you have a penis.
So how do you solve the surgically modified male who wants to use a women's locker room? I'm not arguing with you, to be clear. I think this may be the best definition, but even this one isn't without a few problems. I was just hoping that some here might have other ideas. I guess not.
The idea that if we cannot see a man's penis we cannot tell he's a man is just ridiculous. Who needs to see someone's genitals to know if they are a man or a woman? No one. A male has a male voice and male morphology whether or not he's had his penis relocated -- and maybe you are unaware, but 95% of men who claim a female identity keep their external penis, only 5% relocate it. But even a male without a visible penis can make women uncomfortable and intimidate them because he is still clearly male, no matter where he's hidden his penis. He can also commit acts of assault, even sexual assault, as can an impotent man. If he's born with a dick, he's not a chick -- case closed. "Surgically altered" doesn't make a man not male, and it certainly doesn't make him female. Stop waving this red herring around like a PR$DE flag, for heaven's sakes. "Surgically altered" doesn't make a difference when a man is standing in a woman's changing room or loo, watching a woman undress or listening to us pee, etc. Repurposing the penis does not surgically alter his brain.
I'm 74 and have been nonconforming my entire life. I thought we destroyed stereotypes back in the 60s! But I'm still a woman. Never had the violence and destructiveness of my brothers. Is this movement the Patriarchy reasserting itself? As in, "we'll show you how to WOMAN"? I've spent a lot of time lurking in trans spaces and honestly don't know where they get these notions of gender.
I think you're right that some of this is a backlash. Not amongst the kids, obviously, but amongst the older men who have been so successful at infiltrating public institutions and professions. Many of the young men seem to be openly indulging a resurgent tide of misogyny throughout all areas of society (porn, 'sex work', incels, 'feminist' as a slur, rape is usually a 'false accusation', domestic violence denial, Andrew Tate etc, etc).
There's definitely a prevailing flavour of 'putting those uppity women back where they belong'.
Seems so reversed, upside down, inside out. If a twelve year old girl feels like a boy, shouldn’t she take female hormones to make her feel more like a girl? (This is hypothetical) and then if she says her brain thinks more like a boy’s brain, let’s look at all the ways her brain thinks like a girl. It has nothing to do with pink and blue, dolls and trucks, skirts and pants. Get her interested in some neutral activities, like music, art, and nature, plants, animals, bugs. Our parents gave us Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs to play with, back in the 1950’s. We had dolls and trucks, but the other toys were more fun and encouraged building and creativity.
If a child told me they were trans, a word they learned in school, I would put them in jeans and a t-shirt and distract her/him from this lunacy until it passed.
Did you also learn that the Earth is flat in school today? Because that’s the level of science behind this.
I wonder if the obese children who are next to get drugs, then surgery, will need parental consent. Their lives will be ruined in ways that are similar. They will never learn how a normal body feels, or to enjoy food.
The other thing being normalized is Drag, where men are making fun of women by mocking them with exaggerated “femininity”. Looks like narcissism to me. Who wants their child to grow up to be a drag queen? That’s a very marginalized community. And it’s a fetish.
The stereotypes are on each end of the sexuality spectrum, with most people falling in the middle group, not the exaggerated looks of cartoonish big hair, high heels, a high squeaky voice and a body builder who belches and just can’t look masculine enough. Those people are obsessed with looks, and implants, and plastic surgery. They look silly. And I’m not a bigot, I would tell any of them that they look silly and to please stop this nonsense. The Emperor has no clothes, and I’m so glad you pointed that out.
We will revisit this when you have enjoyed catching bugs, creating your garden, and painting little pictures, and see if you still want to transition.
My daughter thinks she is non binary a d she is an adult and I can't stop her from mutilating her body. She has already had a hysterectomy a d it broke my heart. She thinks now that is she has a mastectomy she will be her true self. I am devastated. She was never like this till she went to college and started dating a guy who come to find out is also non binary and abusive. She.left him but can't seem to break away from the LGBTQ cult. I am still walking in faith that God will open her eyes before it's too late. This country is going down a very dark path.
On the most basic level, I can't fathom how this all became so complicated. The empirical fact of the matter is this. I am a female human being. I don't "identify as" a female human being, I simply am one. I can choose to express myself in ways that are generally considered "feminine," or I can choose to express myself in a more stereotypically "masculine" fashion. Either way, I remain female.
I can find a doctor who is willing to graft leaves and bark onto my body. It still won't make me into a tree. I think it would be far more sensible to dress in forest tones, wear tree-inspired jewelry, and boldly proclaim "boy howdy, do I like trees!"
People can express themselves however they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. However, the denial of biological reality has come to the point where it is causing a lot of harm, and even highly educated people are refusing to see it. Something's gotta give.
my son is 25, has struggled with depression, has changed his name, and exterior clothes sometimes. I don't want to ever have him tell me, Why didnt you help me out of this deception ? so begins the hard loving conversations. Could use some hindsight/help !
Thank you! I have been through so much pain and I don't know, how much is to come, that I can only ask in a kind of sarcasm, what gender identity was diagnosed the child, who abused dogs.
A very garbled bit of theory. Of course self-mutilation is wrong and should be discouraged, even among adults. And yes, the key is biological differences, which should be suggestive of the importance of fertility to men and women. Social standards are neither here nor there; the functioning biology of a man is what makes him a father, just as the same for a woman is what makes him a mother. Let a man and a woman become, together, a mother and a father. That is the true solution to clearly seeing the importance of biological sex.
I don't believe in Gender Identity, nor do I question it, because a person's Gender Identity is only known to himself, herself, itself, whateverself. It is unfalsifiable, unprovable. I couldn't care less about how a person identifies, because no one has any idea of what someone is referring to when claiming any given Gender Identity. What I question, however, is why the unknowable Gender Identity should take precedence over biological sex for purposes of separating people into sports teams, prisons, dressing rooms, and other "single sex spaces." The sexes are divided to prevent pregnancy by rape, which results in people. Why would the "Genders" have to be separated?
But why is sexual violence against women worse than sexual violence against men, except for that the female victim can become impregnated and the male victim can not? You really may be right, the segregation is to protect women from all sorts of male violence, it's just that it begs the question of why do we have such concern for women victims but not male victims. Maybe because men are thought to somehow deserve it because the are part of the population that commits the most sexual violence? Maybe it is because a successful society depends on the welfare of its women at large, but not of its men (i.e., historically lots of men died young or spent their lives in utter servitude to the few more powerful men, and no one cared about them, but women need to be somewhat healthy to properly bring forth the next generation. I don't know, but I think it is important to ponder.
Why is M->F violence (of any kind) worse? I’d put this in the “What we can’t not know” category (cf. the book of the same name by J. Budziszewski). Your purely material answers are not satisfying to me.
Same-sex prison rape is horrible. Short of solitary confinement, what is the answer?
"All of 'gender identity' is absurd, grotesque, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, [insane], and a scourge on humanity (sometimes it’s just downright silly)." Eliza Mondegren
excellent explanation. This is what I wish I could say to my kids, their teachers, and every single person sucked into this absurd nightmare we are living in.
No such thing as "trans." It's a fake, made up propaganda term to sell body dissociation (with the goal of transhumanism), and drugs/surgeries to vulnerable adults and kids. The idea that SOME people can benefit from having body parts removed, genital mutiation, taking drugs to destroy their bodies from the inside out, losing their sexual function, becoming sterile, and creating iatrogenic illness is completely ridiculous. If no child is "born in the wrong body," at what point does the mismatch happen? On their 18th birthday? It's all a psyops pretying on the vulnerable.
Use of the grammatical term gender for sex was started by pedophile plastic surgeon Dr John Money, who performed first sex "change" surgery on David Reimer, a twin who's penis was damaged during circumcision. David was raised as a girl and sexually abused by Money, along with his twin brother . When his parents told him he was born a boy, he returned to living as a boy. Unfortunately, David Reimer and his twin ended up committing suicide. After David Reimer's surgery, Dr Money published papers about changing sex, but he used the word gender, presumably as he knew one cannot change one's genetic code, which determines one's sex. Ergo, gender as a replacement for the word sex was started by a pedophile doctor, with a monetary interest in promulgating a false notion. This is pure Newspeak, and I don't accept it.
Use of the grammatical term gender for sex was started by pedophile plastic surgeon Dr John Money, who performed first sex "change" surgery on David Reimer, a twin who's penis was damaged during circumcision. David was raised as a girl and sexually abused by Money, along with his twin brother . When his parents told him he was born a boy, he returned to living as a boy. Unfortunately, David Reimer and his twin ended up committing suicide. After David Reimer's surgery, Dr Money published papers about changing sex, but he used the word gender, presumably as he knew one cannot change one's genetic code, which determines one's sex. Ergo, gender as a replacement for the word sex was started by a pedophile doctor, with a monetary interest in promulgating a false notion. This is pure Newspeak, and I don't accept it.
This article was, as my kids would say, fire. So good at calling “gender identity” what it is--a wholly manufactured fiction.
The author wrote, “Gender Identity is rather unstable”. This is a line that so many activists would likely call out, but it is actually ensconced in the fantasy of gender ideology through the identity of “gender fluid”.
Thanks for writing this!
This essay has me asking the "what is a woman?" question, but from a different perspective.
The progressive answer to this is "a woman is anyone who says she's a woman." This is nonsesensical in that it's circular, but this is really the answer you get from progressives today.
Conservatives always paint this as a "we got you!" moment, but the conservative answer of "a biological human female" doesn't really satisfy either.
"A woman is someone with a vagina? " Surgery can take care of that.
"A woman is someone with XX chromosomes?" This is "female" in a scientific sense, but it seems pretty absurd to ask your date to give you a DNA sample to see if she's a woman. (It's also a little too Gattaca-esque, for my taste.)
"A woman is a human who can produce children?" Having a hysterectomy makes you not a woman? Surely we've gotten over the "barren womb" stigma by now.
We have a pretty diverse group here. It tends to skew liberal but not progressive, and there are some conservatives (among them, me.) So I'm curious how others would answer this. If it's not reproductive ability or behavior or DNA or outward physical characteristics (or maybe it is?)... what is it that defines someone as a "woman" or as a "man"?
A surgical wound created in the groin is not a vagina. You do know that a vagina is a real thing, right? A real organ that cannot be created by chopping apart a penis and relocating it into a hole for penetration/pleasure of others? Do you know that this surgical wound is constantly trying to heal itself and close, and requires frequent often painful, dilation with an object, often several times a day, in order for it not to close up as any wound wants to? And it still often does, even if the man works very hard at keeping it from healing and closing. It has ZERO of the functionality of a vagina. And I'm not going into the complication rate, the nature of the complications, and how it's not uncommon that this mutilative surgery leaves a man with zero sensation, as well as no ability to be penetrated. So these men can be left with ZERO sexual response after genital mutilation. Surgery cannot make a man into a simulacrum of a woman. Stop being ridiculous and learn the facts. I'm a leftist, btw, an LGB activist, and this is gay eugenics. It's a sex lobotomy. And I think you know very well what a woman is. And no men are women/vice versa.
I think you misunderstood that line. My point on that line was "is a woman a set of outward physical characteristics?" Surgery can create a set of outward physical characteristics; it can make a man LOOK LIKE a woman. I agree with you that doesn't make him into a woman, but that doesn't get around the problem.
I'm not talking about a functional definition. We all know functionally what a "woman" is save the most ardent, trans-cult lunatics. But the trans cult has been able to get away with its lunacy in part because we struggle to find a systemic, legalistic definition ourselves. The cultists DO have one: "a woman is anyone who says she's a woman." It's not unreasonable to ask those of us who say that's self-evidently crazy what our own definition is. It is that sort of legalistic definition with which I'm struggling.
Each of the ways I listed above cause problems somehow. Even the DNA method -- if someone has been surgically modified, why can't they use a women's locker room? It actually would make less sense for them to use a male locker room -- they have what appears to be a vagina! (Yes, I know it's not really, but that's not the point in that case.) However, if surgical modification is the only definition, then modified males can compete on women's sports teams, which is obviously unjust. I hope you see my point. Each method creates a different set of problems. Since this is a war being fought primarily on a linguistic battlefield, our side had better figure out a definition that works.
I just disagree. A man who has his penis repurposed/relocated to another place in his body still HAS a penis. It's still there, as are all the other characteristics that make a man appear, and in all other ways BE, male.
This ridiculous idea that a castrated man resembles or is more like a woman than a man is what you are promoting, and I ask you to JUST STOP. I really don't think you yourself are taking into account your eyes, ears, and evolutionary sensabilities that allow you to clock a male -- often from a hundred feet in dim light. And you are discounting that women and girls are as attuned or even more attuned, for the purposes of safety and reproduction, to whom is male and whom is female.
It's just ridiculous that you would continue to make this specious argument as if it holds any water rather than debunking it and fighting against it, as it defies logic. A man who has had his penis repurposed does not "blend in" to a group of women, and if you use your brain you would not be claiming he would.
You are promoting silly, nonsense ideas that hold no water, except that people like you continue to spout them which then encourages other people to spout them. I understand that these are commonly held ideas, that a man who has had some of his penile tissue inverted looks enough like a woman to "pass," or to be grandfathered into womanhood, for some people. But it's a stupid, baseless argument and the fact that you are citing it as somewhat legit is a bad look for you.
I define woman as one who's DNA has two XX genes, which determines one's sex. Since that is how I define it, I don't accept a trans woman as a woman. I would be delighted if they would accept the designator trans woman, or transgender woman. Doesn't ask how one urinates; simply requests that they accept that a majority of women don't want you in their locker rooms, bathrooms, and changing rooms if you have a penis.
So how do you solve the surgically modified male who wants to use a women's locker room? I'm not arguing with you, to be clear. I think this may be the best definition, but even this one isn't without a few problems. I was just hoping that some here might have other ideas. I guess not.
The idea that if we cannot see a man's penis we cannot tell he's a man is just ridiculous. Who needs to see someone's genitals to know if they are a man or a woman? No one. A male has a male voice and male morphology whether or not he's had his penis relocated -- and maybe you are unaware, but 95% of men who claim a female identity keep their external penis, only 5% relocate it. But even a male without a visible penis can make women uncomfortable and intimidate them because he is still clearly male, no matter where he's hidden his penis. He can also commit acts of assault, even sexual assault, as can an impotent man. If he's born with a dick, he's not a chick -- case closed. "Surgically altered" doesn't make a man not male, and it certainly doesn't make him female. Stop waving this red herring around like a PR$DE flag, for heaven's sakes. "Surgically altered" doesn't make a difference when a man is standing in a woman's changing room or loo, watching a woman undress or listening to us pee, etc. Repurposing the penis does not surgically alter his brain.
I'm 74 and have been nonconforming my entire life. I thought we destroyed stereotypes back in the 60s! But I'm still a woman. Never had the violence and destructiveness of my brothers. Is this movement the Patriarchy reasserting itself? As in, "we'll show you how to WOMAN"? I've spent a lot of time lurking in trans spaces and honestly don't know where they get these notions of gender.
I think you're right that some of this is a backlash. Not amongst the kids, obviously, but amongst the older men who have been so successful at infiltrating public institutions and professions. Many of the young men seem to be openly indulging a resurgent tide of misogyny throughout all areas of society (porn, 'sex work', incels, 'feminist' as a slur, rape is usually a 'false accusation', domestic violence denial, Andrew Tate etc, etc).
There's definitely a prevailing flavour of 'putting those uppity women back where they belong'.
Seems so reversed, upside down, inside out. If a twelve year old girl feels like a boy, shouldn’t she take female hormones to make her feel more like a girl? (This is hypothetical) and then if she says her brain thinks more like a boy’s brain, let’s look at all the ways her brain thinks like a girl. It has nothing to do with pink and blue, dolls and trucks, skirts and pants. Get her interested in some neutral activities, like music, art, and nature, plants, animals, bugs. Our parents gave us Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs to play with, back in the 1950’s. We had dolls and trucks, but the other toys were more fun and encouraged building and creativity.
If a child told me they were trans, a word they learned in school, I would put them in jeans and a t-shirt and distract her/him from this lunacy until it passed.
Did you also learn that the Earth is flat in school today? Because that’s the level of science behind this.
I wonder if the obese children who are next to get drugs, then surgery, will need parental consent. Their lives will be ruined in ways that are similar. They will never learn how a normal body feels, or to enjoy food.
The other thing being normalized is Drag, where men are making fun of women by mocking them with exaggerated “femininity”. Looks like narcissism to me. Who wants their child to grow up to be a drag queen? That’s a very marginalized community. And it’s a fetish.
The stereotypes are on each end of the sexuality spectrum, with most people falling in the middle group, not the exaggerated looks of cartoonish big hair, high heels, a high squeaky voice and a body builder who belches and just can’t look masculine enough. Those people are obsessed with looks, and implants, and plastic surgery. They look silly. And I’m not a bigot, I would tell any of them that they look silly and to please stop this nonsense. The Emperor has no clothes, and I’m so glad you pointed that out.
We will revisit this when you have enjoyed catching bugs, creating your garden, and painting little pictures, and see if you still want to transition.
My daughter thinks she is non binary a d she is an adult and I can't stop her from mutilating her body. She has already had a hysterectomy a d it broke my heart. She thinks now that is she has a mastectomy she will be her true self. I am devastated. She was never like this till she went to college and started dating a guy who come to find out is also non binary and abusive. She.left him but can't seem to break away from the LGBTQ cult. I am still walking in faith that God will open her eyes before it's too late. This country is going down a very dark path.
On the most basic level, I can't fathom how this all became so complicated. The empirical fact of the matter is this. I am a female human being. I don't "identify as" a female human being, I simply am one. I can choose to express myself in ways that are generally considered "feminine," or I can choose to express myself in a more stereotypically "masculine" fashion. Either way, I remain female.
I can find a doctor who is willing to graft leaves and bark onto my body. It still won't make me into a tree. I think it would be far more sensible to dress in forest tones, wear tree-inspired jewelry, and boldly proclaim "boy howdy, do I like trees!"
People can express themselves however they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. However, the denial of biological reality has come to the point where it is causing a lot of harm, and even highly educated people are refusing to see it. Something's gotta give.
my son is 25, has struggled with depression, has changed his name, and exterior clothes sometimes. I don't want to ever have him tell me, Why didnt you help me out of this deception ? so begins the hard loving conversations. Could use some hindsight/help !
I don't know how to insert the link, but there is an incredible whistle blowing article by Jamie Reed, published yesterday.
https://genderclinicnews.substack.com/p/lies-and-suicide-scare-tactics
Is write up about her interview, also links rhe whistleblowing article.
Thank you! I have been through so much pain and I don't know, how much is to come, that I can only ask in a kind of sarcasm, what gender identity was diagnosed the child, who abused dogs.
Excellent article. In particular the second-to-last paragraph with "We have to be honest ... " hits it right on the head.
A very garbled bit of theory. Of course self-mutilation is wrong and should be discouraged, even among adults. And yes, the key is biological differences, which should be suggestive of the importance of fertility to men and women. Social standards are neither here nor there; the functioning biology of a man is what makes him a father, just as the same for a woman is what makes him a mother. Let a man and a woman become, together, a mother and a father. That is the true solution to clearly seeing the importance of biological sex.
I don't believe in Gender Identity, nor do I question it, because a person's Gender Identity is only known to himself, herself, itself, whateverself. It is unfalsifiable, unprovable. I couldn't care less about how a person identifies, because no one has any idea of what someone is referring to when claiming any given Gender Identity. What I question, however, is why the unknowable Gender Identity should take precedence over biological sex for purposes of separating people into sports teams, prisons, dressing rooms, and other "single sex spaces." The sexes are divided to prevent pregnancy by rape, which results in people. Why would the "Genders" have to be separated?
“Pregnancy by rape” is a bit narrow; “male violence (sexual & otherwise) against women” is more like the truth.
But why is sexual violence against women worse than sexual violence against men, except for that the female victim can become impregnated and the male victim can not? You really may be right, the segregation is to protect women from all sorts of male violence, it's just that it begs the question of why do we have such concern for women victims but not male victims. Maybe because men are thought to somehow deserve it because the are part of the population that commits the most sexual violence? Maybe it is because a successful society depends on the welfare of its women at large, but not of its men (i.e., historically lots of men died young or spent their lives in utter servitude to the few more powerful men, and no one cared about them, but women need to be somewhat healthy to properly bring forth the next generation. I don't know, but I think it is important to ponder.
Why is M->F violence (of any kind) worse? I’d put this in the “What we can’t not know” category (cf. the book of the same name by J. Budziszewski). Your purely material answers are not satisfying to me.
Same-sex prison rape is horrible. Short of solitary confinement, what is the answer?
Good response.
"All of 'gender identity' is absurd, grotesque, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, [insane], and a scourge on humanity (sometimes it’s just downright silly)." Eliza Mondegren