Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FRHumans aren’t fish (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
Once upon a time, pollsters would phone you up and ask how satisfied you were with the railways on a scale of one to ten, or how you intended to vote in the next general election. These days — as in the UnHerd Britain poll, published today — you might equally be asked to pronounce on the deep metaphysics of womanhood. And indeed, on that most vexed of contemporary scholastic questions, namely whether “trans women are women”, it seems the jury is still out. According to the poll, 33% of us agree, 33% disagree, and 34% do neither.
Perhaps puzzlingly, this is despite the fact that, faced with practical questions about women’s spaces and women’s sports, there seems to be significant agreement that trans women should keep out of both. Had the latter results been the only ones revealed today, they surely would have suggested that, when push comes to shove, most people do not believe that trans women are women. For the alternative doesn’t add up: large sections of the British public believe there is a kind of anomalously shaped, baritone-voiced woman out there who also, for some reason, shouldn’t be allowed in a female changing room or on the sports field with other women.
A similar impression of confusion in the public mind emerges when the answers to two further poll questions are compared. A majority of respondents agreed that “people should be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one they had recorded at birth”. However, there was markedly less enthusiasm for making it easier to change “legal gender”. This too looks like a strange juxtaposition, at least at first.
In this case, though, the disparity is presumably explained by the fact that “to identify as being of a different gender” in the first question has been interpreted by respondents as nothing much more meaningful than donning fancy dress. To “identify” here mainly refers to men saying that they feel like women, and women saying that they feel like men (or at least, don’t feel like women) — perhaps with some non-conforming clothing thrown in for good measure. It would be an illiberal state indeed that tried to outlaw any of this, and at odds with our generally tolerant national character to try. Still, for poll respondents, rightly allowing people to express themselves freely doesn’t seem to have entailed that we should start handing out gender recognition certificates on the strength of it.
Yet the “trans women are women” answer remains an intriguing one. To my mind, the fact that 34% neither agree nor disagree is telling. And I don’t blame people for feeling befuddled. Pollsters inherit the limitations of dominant public ways of framing particular issues — and there is no more confusing framing than “trans women are women”. For a start, there’s the fact that the phrase functions like a mantra. As transactivists who frequently deploy the phrase no doubt realise, the repetition of the word “women” produces a slightly hypnotic effect. After all, it looks tautological — a bit like asking whether sausage dogs are dogs, or armchairs are chairs.
More fundamentally, there’s a widespread lack of clarity about who counts as a “trans woman” — a characteristic starkly exhibited in recent days by Scotland’s First Transactivist, Nicola Sturgeon. Is a trans woman someone who has had surgery to remove penis and testicles, and had a simulacrum of a vagina put there instead? Does being a trans woman require you to have taken artificial oestrogen for years, or to have had your natal testosterone suppressed? Do you have to own a gender recognition certificate?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt might be useful for people to be taught or at least encouraged to discuss or think about what compassion actually is. What qualities should compassion be balanced with? And what does compassion become if not balanced? For often, people are told that if they don’t go along with the lie that “trans women are women” that they lack compassion. And that if we don’t have compassion, we should feel shame.
The reality is that compassion (the wish that I, you and others be free from suffering) must be balanced with equanimity (the understanding that I, you and others will without exception suffer in this life.) Without equanimity, compassion falls into either anger or grief. And we can see plenty of this from trans-extremists. Likewise, without compassion, equanimity falls into indifference.
Only by contemplating what compassion is and how it looks in practice might folk realise that it isn’t compassionate to indulge delusions. That by affirming a persons delusions (lying to them) you take them further away from what would help them, and what would be compassionate – learning tools and techniques that allow them to cope with a world not in accordance with their perceptions. To understand that their condition, be it gender dysphoria, body dysmorphia, AGF or whatever it is, places them on the margins of society. And that society will accommodate them to a degree, but that compassion has also to be directed to the vast majority who do not suffer from these conditions.
Compassion for all would mean the majority of us can continue with our lives as they are: segregated by sex when it matters, and those with these conditions can be offered help in the form of mental tools and techniques if they want them and are willing to practice them.
Compassion and equanimity need to be supported by wisdom.
My first comment on Unherd: this was excellently expressed. I am a vicar so will need to speak to my congregations on this point. Please may I quote you, probably as ‘one commenter on a news website’ – or by name, if you prefer?: “Without equanimity, compassion falls into either anger or grief. And we can see plenty of this from trans-extremists.”- along with a paraphrase of your definition, which is totally consonant with the Bible. The train of thought is very evocative of Jonathan Haidt in ‘the Coddling of the American Mind’, but I think you said it more succinctly and incisively.
Looks like this is a reference to the Buddhist “Four Immeasurables”: loving-kindness, compassion, equanimity, joy.
It’s the Brahma Viharas from traditional Theravadan Buddhism. The joy is “sympathetic joy” taking joy in the benficial actions speech and thought of ourselves and others.
It’s the Brahma Viharas from traditional Theravadan Buddhism. The joy is “sympathetic joy” taking joy in the benficial actions speech and thought of ourselves and others.
Hi Vicar – be sure to get into the Giles Comments – he is the Unherd Vicar writer here who pretty much has God being gender non-spefic and probably wears a rainbow Vestments and gender reveal christenings…
I’m not really sure how you can object to an all powerful immanent being, the Creator of the world, who is not a man or a woman, as not having a gender…..Please explain….
Depends if you believe the bible is the word of God or not. If it is the word of God who are we to change the expression of who He is?
Dodgy argument unless you have the scholarship to go back to the Greek and before that the Aramaic to discover whether the writers of the King James Bible took liberties.
This begs the question, Phil…if arguing from the framing of a Christian, are you suggesting that Jesus in terrestrial form was really a nonbinary non-man/non-woman…something? If so, what was…It? Do you have evidence of such a radical redefinition? Seems that if we had it all wrong about humanity being created in God’s image, and that Jesus was really not the Word made flesh as a man, he would have pulled a Red Pill moment with his Apostles rather than uttering, “Our Father Who Art in Heaven…” in a display and perpetuation of utter error about the nature of the Creator and us. He could have just as easily said, “Our Creator That Art in Heaven”(in Aramaic) to keep it nonbinary and then given a Red Pill sermon with the beatitudes that we had it all wrong.
Then again, the woke who are now arguing that god is nonbinary are doing what others have done for eons – reimagining god in their most sacred image of the day…and nothing is closer to being divine these days in the media, Hollywood, academia and so forth than a nirvana woke state of nonbinary-ness ….
With such a redefinition, Christians would have to toss a large portion of their liturgy and scriptures (whether in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or any other language) and understanding of Jesus upon the purging bonfire of heresy. Say goodbye to the New Testament such as it is. That said, I’d like to see the ancient evidence that Jesus was really nonbinary.
It amazes and disgusts me that people actually claim a depiction of a stab wound is the same as a vagina. A stab wound is NOT a vagina. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus claim to be a woman.
Try not to worry about it. These ideas have a measure of desperation about them that is distressing if we focus on them and let them affect our own thinking.
Try not to worry about it. These ideas have a measure of desperation about them that is distressing if we focus on them and let them affect our own thinking.
Gender specificity is the least significant aspect of Jesus, his humanity is more important, given the context and times of Jesus’s birth, survival to adulthood as a man was possibly more likely than as a woman.
Also more likely to be listened to as a man in the society he lived in, but only just, given the radical nature of the message he taught.
By and large gender is not something one lives in self conscious awareness of. How one lives seems more important than than in what gender one does it. Adjustment and adaptation, possibly with maturity to fit into the world as it is, as living at all is complex , difficult to do well, and always changing.
We were actually talking about whether “God” was male or female! Jesus was one aspect of God, the Son, so we can reasonably refer to him as a man (though also divine)
It amazes and disgusts me that people actually claim a depiction of a stab wound is the same as a vagina. A stab wound is NOT a vagina. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus claim to be a woman.
Gender specificity is the least significant aspect of Jesus, his humanity is more important, given the context and times of Jesus’s birth, survival to adulthood as a man was possibly more likely than as a woman.
Also more likely to be listened to as a man in the society he lived in, but only just, given the radical nature of the message he taught.
By and large gender is not something one lives in self conscious awareness of. How one lives seems more important than than in what gender one does it. Adjustment and adaptation, possibly with maturity to fit into the world as it is, as living at all is complex , difficult to do well, and always changing.
We were actually talking about whether “God” was male or female! Jesus was one aspect of God, the Son, so we can reasonably refer to him as a man (though also divine)
Which is what most theological scholars actually do.
Jesus was the son of God – and said “father forgive the …”thats very clear
Only because when the bible was written, women could not write… Would all have been different if women had been allowed to write and opine.
Surely if trans women are women, they would not need the label “trans”, they would simply be women. But as a transsexual friend has stated too may times to count, “I am a biological man who presents as a woman. I am not a real woman,” Since s/he went through surgery more than 50 years ago, I think she knows what she is speaking about. She looks like a slightly batty older woman, except in certain lights, you think “man” as I did the first time I met her when I was 8 years old.
Only because when the bible was written, women could not write… Would all have been different if women had been allowed to write and opine.
Surely if trans women are women, they would not need the label “trans”, they would simply be women. But as a transsexual friend has stated too may times to count, “I am a biological man who presents as a woman. I am not a real woman,” Since s/he went through surgery more than 50 years ago, I think she knows what she is speaking about. She looks like a slightly batty older woman, except in certain lights, you think “man” as I did the first time I met her when I was 8 years old.
This begs the question, Phil…if arguing from the framing of a Christian, are you suggesting that Jesus in terrestrial form was really a nonbinary non-man/non-woman…something? If so, what was…It? Do you have evidence of such a radical redefinition? Seems that if we had it all wrong about humanity being created in God’s image, and that Jesus was really not the Word made flesh as a man, he would have pulled a Red Pill moment with his Apostles rather than uttering, “Our Father Who Art in Heaven…” in a display and perpetuation of utter error about the nature of the Creator and us. He could have just as easily said, “Our Creator That Art in Heaven”(in Aramaic) to keep it nonbinary and then given a Red Pill sermon with the beatitudes that we had it all wrong.
Then again, the woke who are now arguing that god is nonbinary are doing what others have done for eons – reimagining god in their most sacred image of the day…and nothing is closer to being divine these days in the media, Hollywood, academia and so forth than a nirvana woke state of nonbinary-ness ….
With such a redefinition, Christians would have to toss a large portion of their liturgy and scriptures (whether in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or any other language) and understanding of Jesus upon the purging bonfire of heresy. Say goodbye to the New Testament such as it is. That said, I’d like to see the ancient evidence that Jesus was really nonbinary.
Which is what most theological scholars actually do.
Jesus was the son of God – and said “father forgive the …”thats very clear
Modern scholarship has shown, including by Christians and Jewish scholars, that the Bible was without any serious doubt, written and compiled by human beings over many hundreds of years with various different styles and linguistic usages. Of course these writers considered they were inspired by God, but it is a bit of a surprise that God is no unclear and inconsistent on many issues. If you want to instruct people how to live so that they don’t go to Hell, it might be better to write in simple and clear and precise prose rather than a series of parables!
As you say, there were many different writers. It therefore seems amazing that there is such consistence if it were not true and also that they would put in as facts things that would be very unlikely to be believed such as women being the first people to see the risen Lord.
As you say, there were many different writers. It therefore seems amazing that there is such consistence if it were not true and also that they would put in as facts things that would be very unlikely to be believed such as women being the first people to see the risen Lord.
Dodgy argument unless you have the scholarship to go back to the Greek and before that the Aramaic to discover whether the writers of the King James Bible took liberties.
Modern scholarship has shown, including by Christians and Jewish scholars, that the Bible was without any serious doubt, written and compiled by human beings over many hundreds of years with various different styles and linguistic usages. Of course these writers considered they were inspired by God, but it is a bit of a surprise that God is no unclear and inconsistent on many issues. If you want to instruct people how to live so that they don’t go to Hell, it might be better to write in simple and clear and precise prose rather than a series of parables!
I object to people like you telling me what I am permitted to believe. I have the right to believe or NOT believe in any god, goddess, spirit or any other form of spirituality I want–as long as it doesn’t involve some monstrous act like human sacrifice. Stop trying to delete people’s freedom of religion and start minding your own business.
Er, I am not even sure what you are responding to, as I didn’t say any of those things. You can believe whatever you like. I hope however you offer the same tolerance to others!
The only thing I said was that it is a bit daft insisting that an all powerful immanent being must be either male or female; However if you wish to believe either it is up to you.
Er, I am not even sure what you are responding to, as I didn’t say any of those things. You can believe whatever you like. I hope however you offer the same tolerance to others!
The only thing I said was that it is a bit daft insisting that an all powerful immanent being must be either male or female; However if you wish to believe either it is up to you.
Not having a gender –because you’re a supreme immanent being — has absolutely nothing to do with being “non-binary”, which (correctly) assumes a binary state that one is (incorrectly) not a part of.
Depends if you believe the bible is the word of God or not. If it is the word of God who are we to change the expression of who He is?
I object to people like you telling me what I am permitted to believe. I have the right to believe or NOT believe in any god, goddess, spirit or any other form of spirituality I want–as long as it doesn’t involve some monstrous act like human sacrifice. Stop trying to delete people’s freedom of religion and start minding your own business.
Not having a gender –because you’re a supreme immanent being — has absolutely nothing to do with being “non-binary”, which (correctly) assumes a binary state that one is (incorrectly) not a part of.
Not that I have noticed
I’m not really sure how you can object to an all powerful immanent being, the Creator of the world, who is not a man or a woman, as not having a gender…..Please explain….
Not that I have noticed
Morning, there, Vicar….
Back in the day when I was nine years old (1952) in my school in Ireland I got into trouble when I said “God does not exist”.
Today I get into trouble when I say that trans women don’t exist.
Not all that much progress.
…. and don’t get me started on transubstantiation. 🙂
There is a big difference between God and trans women.
Trans woman: Somebody who makes a woman from a man:
God: Somebody who made women from men.
And something from nothing
And something from nothing
Not really… Both take faith! God is a fantasy figure created to explain things that could not be explained to the populace at the time and to keep that populace under the control of the few.
Trans women are biological men who present as women and in the majority of cases, it takes a faith in the compassion and kindness of others to believe that they look like and behave like biological women. Very few pass “the hair on the back of the neck” test in a place where no men should be. A bit like when certain people tell you they are behaving in a certain way because God has told them to and your gut tells you to run far and fast.
Trans woman: Somebody who makes a woman from a man:
God: Somebody who made women from men.
Not really… Both take faith! God is a fantasy figure created to explain things that could not be explained to the populace at the time and to keep that populace under the control of the few.
Trans women are biological men who present as women and in the majority of cases, it takes a faith in the compassion and kindness of others to believe that they look like and behave like biological women. Very few pass “the hair on the back of the neck” test in a place where no men should be. A bit like when certain people tell you they are behaving in a certain way because God has told them to and your gut tells you to run far and fast.
One thing has changed: Back in the day a man dressed as a woman was a Transvestite man.
Or a priest…
Not any more. They’d put you in the stocks for saying that now (or the modern equivalent, a baying mob descends on you on social media to call you a transphobe)
And still is.
Or a priest…
Not any more. They’d put you in the stocks for saying that now (or the modern equivalent, a baying mob descends on you on social media to call you a transphobe)
And still is.
To which the response has to be Good doesn’t worry about it, transubstantiation, why should we?
There is a big difference between God and trans women.
One thing has changed: Back in the day a man dressed as a woman was a Transvestite man.
To which the response has to be Good doesn’t worry about it, transubstantiation, why should we?
Certainly Josh, but you would be teaching the Brahma Viharas from traditional Theravadan Buddhism. I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong) but the main difference between Theravadan and Christian compassion is, in Christianity compassion is directed towards others, not ourselves. In Buddhism, ourselves are included. Is this correct?
If you’d like to read more on the topic of compassion (a comparison with Christianity would be fascinating) see “With compassionate understanding” by Steve and Rosemary Weissman. Their work is very much based on the Pali canon and tailored for lay people.
I’ve never thought of Christian compassion in those terms, but it makes me wonder, if Christian compassion is directed towards others, that might explain why you find Catholic hospitals and charities in every corner of the globe. Indeed in any American city the Catholic charities are a visibly active presence.
Admittedly I know very little about Buddhism. The practitioners I’ve met talk about meditation as if it were a morally good and/or personally therapeutic pursuit.
With Theravada, material help to others (charity) is seen as a lesser good than giving people the opportunity to learn the Buddha Dhamma. So in Theravadan countries people are more inclined to support monasteries and meditation centres than health or poverty charities. The Dhamma is seen as the greatest gift.
With Theravada, material help to others (charity) is seen as a lesser good than giving people the opportunity to learn the Buddha Dhamma. So in Theravadan countries people are more inclined to support monasteries and meditation centres than health or poverty charities. The Dhamma is seen as the greatest gift.
Actually, Christianity has a balanced approach. Christ’s second commandment is ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12.31). Christ rightly understood that human beings will naturally desire their own wellbeing, and that the harder part is true empathy: having a real interest in the well-being of others. A trivial indicator: how many conversations have you had recently where your interlocutor only wanted to talk about him/herself and showed little real interest in you?
Thanks N Forster 🙂 I think the Isaiah 53 prophecy (for example) of the Messiah got there first with the notion that suffering is the only possible path to redemption. Also Proverbs 3:10-12 about the Lord disciplining His children. Equanimity is expressed in Orthodox mysticism as ‘a joyful sadness’ – reflecting Jesus’ acceptance of the inevitability of the cross. I’m a Jesus guy through & through: all wisdom is only judged insofar as it takes its cues from Him & the Scriptures that are all about Him. If you’d like a comparative study between Buddhism and Christianity, there’s a podcast interview with a recent convert from Buddhism to Christianity which I found fascinating. I can (I think? Still working out the Unherd rules…) DM you the link if you’d be interested. Thanks for the Weissman recommendation. There are several Buddhists in my parish with whom I have interesting conversations.
Difficult to love your neighbour as yourself without compassion for both, neighbour and self.
I’ve never thought of Christian compassion in those terms, but it makes me wonder, if Christian compassion is directed towards others, that might explain why you find Catholic hospitals and charities in every corner of the globe. Indeed in any American city the Catholic charities are a visibly active presence.
Admittedly I know very little about Buddhism. The practitioners I’ve met talk about meditation as if it were a morally good and/or personally therapeutic pursuit.
Actually, Christianity has a balanced approach. Christ’s second commandment is ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12.31). Christ rightly understood that human beings will naturally desire their own wellbeing, and that the harder part is true empathy: having a real interest in the well-being of others. A trivial indicator: how many conversations have you had recently where your interlocutor only wanted to talk about him/herself and showed little real interest in you?
Thanks N Forster 🙂 I think the Isaiah 53 prophecy (for example) of the Messiah got there first with the notion that suffering is the only possible path to redemption. Also Proverbs 3:10-12 about the Lord disciplining His children. Equanimity is expressed in Orthodox mysticism as ‘a joyful sadness’ – reflecting Jesus’ acceptance of the inevitability of the cross. I’m a Jesus guy through & through: all wisdom is only judged insofar as it takes its cues from Him & the Scriptures that are all about Him. If you’d like a comparative study between Buddhism and Christianity, there’s a podcast interview with a recent convert from Buddhism to Christianity which I found fascinating. I can (I think? Still working out the Unherd rules…) DM you the link if you’d be interested. Thanks for the Weissman recommendation. There are several Buddhists in my parish with whom I have interesting conversations.
Difficult to love your neighbour as yourself without compassion for both, neighbour and self.
Looks like this is a reference to the Buddhist “Four Immeasurables”: loving-kindness, compassion, equanimity, joy.
Hi Vicar – be sure to get into the Giles Comments – he is the Unherd Vicar writer here who pretty much has God being gender non-spefic and probably wears a rainbow Vestments and gender reveal christenings…
Morning, there, Vicar….
Back in the day when I was nine years old (1952) in my school in Ireland I got into trouble when I said “God does not exist”.
Today I get into trouble when I say that trans women don’t exist.
Not all that much progress.
…. and don’t get me started on transubstantiation. 🙂
Certainly Josh, but you would be teaching the Brahma Viharas from traditional Theravadan Buddhism. I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong) but the main difference between Theravadan and Christian compassion is, in Christianity compassion is directed towards others, not ourselves. In Buddhism, ourselves are included. Is this correct?
If you’d like to read more on the topic of compassion (a comparison with Christianity would be fascinating) see “With compassionate understanding” by Steve and Rosemary Weissman. Their work is very much based on the Pali canon and tailored for lay people.
Indeed. An example of false compassion might be assuring morbidly obese people that their over-eating is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, that they should be ‘body positive’ and that to criticize their choices and diet as unhealthy is ‘fat phobic’ and discriminatory. One of these body positive obese models died of a massive heart attack just the other day, she was only in her 30’s. Is it really compassionate to go along with and re-enforce such people’s delusions or is it in truth just virtue signaling cowardice?
When a girl with extreme anorexia looks at herself in the mirror, she sees a fat person, everyone else sees a living skeleton. Should we go along with the idea that she is indeed fat? Should we validate ‘her truth’?
When a middle aged, paunchy, knobbley-kneed, lantern jawed ‘trans woman’ looks at herself in the mirror, presumably she sees a beautiful woman, yet everyone else sees a ridiculous pantomime dame. I really do not mind going along for the sake of common decency, with the idea that such transvestites are ‘women’, but to actually expect me to believe it to the extent that I’d be quite happy for such a person to share a changing room or showers with my fifteen year old daughter? Oh please!
Yes. An old friend who worked in Social services when we still had large mental institutions did tell me though that with their clients they only contradicted a persons delusions if there was imminent danger to themselves or others. Otherwise telling them they weren’t who they thought they were could cause utter chaos. But then, he was dealing with genuinely crazy people already removed from society.
We all seem to be living in one now…
Are there really anorexics still around? I heard that the sort of people who used to become anorexics are these days deciding to change their gender instead. Anorexia is so 20th Century.
Unfortunately, there are still people dying of anorexia, although they might also think they’re trans. Eating disorders are mostly caused by starvation, whether voluntary (dieting) or involuntary. Binging is a more common symptom, but anorexia also happens. See the Minnesota Starvation Experiment from the 1940s. (First/last time this study was done because of moral concerns)
Unfortunately, there are still people dying of anorexia, although they might also think they’re trans. Eating disorders are mostly caused by starvation, whether voluntary (dieting) or involuntary. Binging is a more common symptom, but anorexia also happens. See the Minnesota Starvation Experiment from the 1940s. (First/last time this study was done because of moral concerns)
I don’t want your “compassion”. I just want you to leave fat people the F alone and mind your own business. Thin people also die young of heart attacks, and sometimes fat people live well into their 90s. Leon Askin (General Burkhalter in Hogan’s heroes) lived to age 97, and he was fat all his life.
Why is it people like you feel the need for an excuse to turn everything into an attack on fat people? Or do you also feel the need to constantly attack people with pimples for not washing their faces enough or scream at people in car crashes for not paying enough attention while driving?
You have no clue what every fat person eats or doesn’t eat. All sorts of diseases cause weight gain. Processed foods have all sorts of ingredients that cause weight gain–and a lot of those foods are called “healthy”, like seed oils and sugary smoothies. Not everyone gains weight but not everyone infected with Covid dies, either. Nature loads the gun, and environment pulls the trigger. Illness is NOT a “lifestye choice”,and that includes eating disorders.
You can’t have even read my post properly, let alone understood it. I’m not offering you my ‘compassion’ – I’m criticizing the false compassion that gives very sick and deluded people validation that often ends up leading to their early deaths. Of course thin people die too, did you not read what I wrote about anorexics?
I know ‘illness is not a lifestyle choice’ but telling people that their eating disorder is harmless is not helping morbidly obese people to make the necessary changes they need to make if they are going to avoid an early grave, so excusing and validating their over-eating is a profoundly cruel, cowardly and uncompassionate lie to tell them.
Reading your response to Geoff’s comment is very illuminating.
I recall when seat belts were required, opponents would cite anecdotes of people saved from a cliff dive or burning car by being flung out of the car, ignoring the overall statistics.
As tobacco smoking was discouraged, opponents would cite somebody who smoked and lived to 98 without getting lung cancer, ignoring the overall statistics.
As drunk driving laws were expanded, opponents would cite somebody who often drove while intoxicated yet never had an accident, ignoring the overall statistics.
We could go on. Obvious cherry picking of anomalous anecdotes as if they mattered more than overall statistics, is a desperation measure for avoiding reality.
I don’t tell fat people what to do, and I don’t shame them or treat their weight as a “moral issue”, and I’m friends with many. When a fat friend collapsed one of my chairs (luckily not causing injury), I was solicitous and then quietly replaced it and some others with sturdier chairs (I did let them know in the end, because I didn’t want them to be fearful of it happening again). I don’t even bring weight up; I assume they have all the motivation they need and do not need me to remind them.
But I will not support the delusion that being substantially fat is not statistically quite unhealthy and likely to lead to serious health outcomes and an earlier death.
Yes, one can be more fit or less fit at any size – but many who chant that mantra are in fact in poor physical shape. I’m an overweight (as well as elderly) hiker and I pass many people on the trail. No fat person has ever, ever kept up with me, and as much as I care about them, not a single one in my acquaintance can walk very far. Every single one of any age has real foot or leg problems; compensations that work at age 30 fail at 60. (Want to cite another rare exception as if that anomoly changes anything overall?)
But even if (relatively) cardiovascularly fit, having that much adipose tissue has some serious systemic effects in itself.
My fat friends do not require that I detach myself from reality in order to be a friend, only that I treat them with the same respect that I treat others, and I feel the same in the other direction – mutual compassion and respect, but not support for delusions.
As I say, I have no problems being friends with fat people, and I can make certain accommodations to support them, but I would have trouble connecting very deeply with some of the “body positivity” advocates – not because of their weight, but because of their mental states. If their personal coping behavior requires them to control my mind, that’s going too far for a healthy relationship. I won’t dehumanize them or advocate for harm to them, and I have compassion for them, but I still get a choice of who it’s healthy to voluntarily spend time with.
You can’t have even read my post properly, let alone understood it. I’m not offering you my ‘compassion’ – I’m criticizing the false compassion that gives very sick and deluded people validation that often ends up leading to their early deaths. Of course thin people die too, did you not read what I wrote about anorexics?
I know ‘illness is not a lifestyle choice’ but telling people that their eating disorder is harmless is not helping morbidly obese people to make the necessary changes they need to make if they are going to avoid an early grave, so excusing and validating their over-eating is a profoundly cruel, cowardly and uncompassionate lie to tell them.
Reading your response to Geoff’s comment is very illuminating.
I recall when seat belts were required, opponents would cite anecdotes of people saved from a cliff dive or burning car by being flung out of the car, ignoring the overall statistics.
As tobacco smoking was discouraged, opponents would cite somebody who smoked and lived to 98 without getting lung cancer, ignoring the overall statistics.
As drunk driving laws were expanded, opponents would cite somebody who often drove while intoxicated yet never had an accident, ignoring the overall statistics.
We could go on. Obvious cherry picking of anomalous anecdotes as if they mattered more than overall statistics, is a desperation measure for avoiding reality.
I don’t tell fat people what to do, and I don’t shame them or treat their weight as a “moral issue”, and I’m friends with many. When a fat friend collapsed one of my chairs (luckily not causing injury), I was solicitous and then quietly replaced it and some others with sturdier chairs (I did let them know in the end, because I didn’t want them to be fearful of it happening again). I don’t even bring weight up; I assume they have all the motivation they need and do not need me to remind them.
But I will not support the delusion that being substantially fat is not statistically quite unhealthy and likely to lead to serious health outcomes and an earlier death.
Yes, one can be more fit or less fit at any size – but many who chant that mantra are in fact in poor physical shape. I’m an overweight (as well as elderly) hiker and I pass many people on the trail. No fat person has ever, ever kept up with me, and as much as I care about them, not a single one in my acquaintance can walk very far. Every single one of any age has real foot or leg problems; compensations that work at age 30 fail at 60. (Want to cite another rare exception as if that anomoly changes anything overall?)
But even if (relatively) cardiovascularly fit, having that much adipose tissue has some serious systemic effects in itself.
My fat friends do not require that I detach myself from reality in order to be a friend, only that I treat them with the same respect that I treat others, and I feel the same in the other direction – mutual compassion and respect, but not support for delusions.
As I say, I have no problems being friends with fat people, and I can make certain accommodations to support them, but I would have trouble connecting very deeply with some of the “body positivity” advocates – not because of their weight, but because of their mental states. If their personal coping behavior requires them to control my mind, that’s going too far for a healthy relationship. I won’t dehumanize them or advocate for harm to them, and I have compassion for them, but I still get a choice of who it’s healthy to voluntarily spend time with.
Yes. An old friend who worked in Social services when we still had large mental institutions did tell me though that with their clients they only contradicted a persons delusions if there was imminent danger to themselves or others. Otherwise telling them they weren’t who they thought they were could cause utter chaos. But then, he was dealing with genuinely crazy people already removed from society.
We all seem to be living in one now…
Are there really anorexics still around? I heard that the sort of people who used to become anorexics are these days deciding to change their gender instead. Anorexia is so 20th Century.
I don’t want your “compassion”. I just want you to leave fat people the F alone and mind your own business. Thin people also die young of heart attacks, and sometimes fat people live well into their 90s. Leon Askin (General Burkhalter in Hogan’s heroes) lived to age 97, and he was fat all his life.
Why is it people like you feel the need for an excuse to turn everything into an attack on fat people? Or do you also feel the need to constantly attack people with pimples for not washing their faces enough or scream at people in car crashes for not paying enough attention while driving?
You have no clue what every fat person eats or doesn’t eat. All sorts of diseases cause weight gain. Processed foods have all sorts of ingredients that cause weight gain–and a lot of those foods are called “healthy”, like seed oils and sugary smoothies. Not everyone gains weight but not everyone infected with Covid dies, either. Nature loads the gun, and environment pulls the trigger. Illness is NOT a “lifestye choice”,and that includes eating disorders.
Of course now, many with trans identities are not suffering from any particular identifiable condition for which compassion would be athe appropriate response. That is the whole point of Gender Self Id – it removes, and negates, the need for a diagnosis of dysphoria.
And even then, compassion does not mean going along with someone’s deluded inner feeling that they are something which they are not. It is one thing to have fellow feeling, another to have to validate that feeling.
I read your post carefully but while I agree with your general argument, I don’t agree with your definition of compassion, “feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others”, nor of equanimity, “calmness and composure, especially in a difficult situation”.
Where we agree is that compassion is about empathy. But why should my compassion for another entitle that other to impose their “identity” on me, with all its consequences, irrespective of my feelings? To accept this would be to subordinate my feelings to that other person. In other words “trans” people are demanding more compassion from others than they themselves are prepared to extend to those others. This has real world consequences. And because that is so and because we live in proximity to others within a society, the identity someone feels must not be allowed to impose on the identities of the majority where it is to their detriment. Instead, the majority in a compassionate society needs to find ways of helping “trans” people, IMO a mainly pychological delusion where it is not merely a calculating way to enter a sex segregated space, to cope with their delusion.
And that brings me to your well expressed sentence: “by affirming a persons delusions (lying to them) you take them further away from what would help them, and what would be compassionate – learning tools and techniques that allow them to cope with a world not in accordance with their perceptions.”
Not carefully enough. Please read my post again. You have substituted my definition of compassion and equanimity with ones of your own. And taken exception to your own substitutes. We don’t agree on empathy either. I didn’t mention it.
I’m afraid you’re arguing with something I have not said and do not think.
Please read my post again, and try not to confuse what I have written with what you already think. You may well find we are in agreement.
‘Mental institutions’ and ‘crazy’? don’t think you understand empathy at all…
I understand it enough not to confuse empathy and compassion. Empathy is “feeling with”, compassion as I was taught is “the wish that I, you and others be free from suffering.”
I do not have to feel a persons’ pain to know they are suffering, that everyone suffers.
I understand it enough not to confuse empathy and compassion. Empathy is “feeling with”, compassion as I was taught is “the wish that I, you and others be free from suffering.”
I do not have to feel a persons’ pain to know they are suffering, that everyone suffers.
‘Mental institutions’ and ‘crazy’? don’t think you understand empathy at all…
Not carefully enough. Please read my post again. You have substituted my definition of compassion and equanimity with ones of your own. And taken exception to your own substitutes. We don’t agree on empathy either. I didn’t mention it.
I’m afraid you’re arguing with something I have not said and do not think.
Please read my post again, and try not to confuse what I have written with what you already think. You may well find we are in agreement.
One lifelong friend of mine is currently rather upset with me regarding my views on trans and non-binary identity, and told me quite crossly to “be kind” the other day. I responded by saying that it isn’t kind to encourage already vulnerable individuals to think that they can control how others speak and think about gender and sex or how our society references sex and gender, let alone mutilate their bodies when the issue they have is not with their bodies, but with their minds.
All this ideology does is contribute to their misery, it doesn’t empower them to be themselves or accept themselves as they are, it doesn’t foster understanding and inclusion, it ensures that most with healthy boundaries minimise their contact with them rather than deal with someone trying to control how they think and the language they use, and sets people on a path of unnecessary lifelong medical interventions that all come with severe side effects and complications.
Yep, progressive politics is the opposite of cognitive behavioural therapy. It conditions the mind to see evil where it does not exist, it encourages people to control the actions, speech and thoughts of others, it compounds conceit. It deranges people.
Very insightful, never heard progressive politics so precisely defined.
Do you think it is because they lack the ability to control themselves they desire the ability to control others?
Possibly, but often it is about as seeing the cause of all of lifes’ problems as being external. It’s the opposite of the Four Noble Truths.
All forms of Critical theory (race/queer etc) are based on this wrong view. They are fundamentally flawed.
Communism was a flawed view but millions lost their lives over it.
Communism was a flawed view but millions lost their lives over it.
Possibly, but often it is about as seeing the cause of all of lifes’ problems as being external. It’s the opposite of the Four Noble Truths.
All forms of Critical theory (race/queer etc) are based on this wrong view. They are fundamentally flawed.
Very true. In the list of hate crimes at police stations some reported someone who bibbed their hooter at his car as a racist hate crime. It appears with this loony government that things are seen as hate when no offence was meant. The same thing is happening in people losing their jobs because of misgendering a person. It is seen as hate rather than an effort not to endorse a delusion. For some the truth hurts even if spoken in love. The only casualty in the end would be truth which would lead to confusion.
Oh, you must love microaggressions. According to the neo-progressive weaponization of that concept, it doesn’t really matter whether or not any offense was intended, because to quote a mantra from my DEI training, “impact trumps intention”. The psychological violence is the same, independent of any intention. So the speaker or doer is fully responsible for however the recipient chooses to interpret words or actions, period.
In that topsy turvey world, it doesn’t even matter whether the speaker actually objectively said something the recipient thinks they heard; if it was a mistaken hearing, the speaker is still solely responsible because they used words which could possibly be misheard in that manner.
It’s a power seeking ideology disguising itself as just expecting everybody to treat others with kindness – according to certain people’s unquestionable and manipulative redefinitions of “kindness”.
Oh, you must love microaggressions. According to the neo-progressive weaponization of that concept, it doesn’t really matter whether or not any offense was intended, because to quote a mantra from my DEI training, “impact trumps intention”. The psychological violence is the same, independent of any intention. So the speaker or doer is fully responsible for however the recipient chooses to interpret words or actions, period.
In that topsy turvey world, it doesn’t even matter whether the speaker actually objectively said something the recipient thinks they heard; if it was a mistaken hearing, the speaker is still solely responsible because they used words which could possibly be misheard in that manner.
It’s a power seeking ideology disguising itself as just expecting everybody to treat others with kindness – according to certain people’s unquestionable and manipulative redefinitions of “kindness”.
Very insightful, never heard progressive politics so precisely defined.
Do you think it is because they lack the ability to control themselves they desire the ability to control others?
Very true. In the list of hate crimes at police stations some reported someone who bibbed their hooter at his car as a racist hate crime. It appears with this loony government that things are seen as hate when no offence was meant. The same thing is happening in people losing their jobs because of misgendering a person. It is seen as hate rather than an effort not to endorse a delusion. For some the truth hurts even if spoken in love. The only casualty in the end would be truth which would lead to confusion.
People are losing their jobs today for using the wrong pronoun ie refusing to be forced to call a man a miss or Jane or whatever. These do not appear to be people who need our compassion. More like agree or else.
The behaviour that a good proportion of these individuals display is definitely dysfunctional and the effects of it on others certainly can be severe when institutional power is used to enables it, yet ultimately, happy people do not have a compulsion to control others in this way or seek retribution for every perceived slight.
That is where compassion comes in, because these individuals generally feel desperately out of control and unhappy, and that isn’t a state that I would wish anyone to live in. Yet ultimately, I as an individual have no control over the way that others perceive themselves and the world, the little control I do have is in how I respond to the world, so the most compassionate thing I can do is hope that these unhappy individuals receive the appropriate therapeutic interventions so they may learn to direct that controlling behaviour inwards in a more constructive way that will improve their situations.
Whilst I cannot condone the damage that these unhappy individuals are doing to others with their litigious and controlling mindset, and outright condemn the institutions that are enabling their dysfunction, the vast majority of destruction they enact is to their own lives, their own bodies and their own relationships.
Thanks for that perspective. You are correct; the unbalanced and deluded and disturbed have always been with us and always will be. They deserve compassion, but not control of society. The difference now is that institutions have been commandeered by them in the quest to impose their will on others, and therein lies the real fault.
It’s easy to get upset at entitled people claiming they own the moral high ground, but they are often sad and miserable people coping the best they can; it’s the institutions which have failed us.
Thanks for that perspective. You are correct; the unbalanced and deluded and disturbed have always been with us and always will be. They deserve compassion, but not control of society. The difference now is that institutions have been commandeered by them in the quest to impose their will on others, and therein lies the real fault.
It’s easy to get upset at entitled people claiming they own the moral high ground, but they are often sad and miserable people coping the best they can; it’s the institutions which have failed us.
I have two transsexual friends who were hounded off social media and out of their jobs as equality trainers because they refuse to chenge how they describe themselves – as transsexual women who are biological men presenting as women. As people who are much older than most of those screaming “trans women are women/trans men are men” – 153 years between the two – they continue to speak their minds when meeting people often with the threat of violence hanging over them. Both insist that they need to be honest to fit with the Society they live in.
The behaviour that a good proportion of these individuals display is definitely dysfunctional and the effects of it on others certainly can be severe when institutional power is used to enables it, yet ultimately, happy people do not have a compulsion to control others in this way or seek retribution for every perceived slight.
That is where compassion comes in, because these individuals generally feel desperately out of control and unhappy, and that isn’t a state that I would wish anyone to live in. Yet ultimately, I as an individual have no control over the way that others perceive themselves and the world, the little control I do have is in how I respond to the world, so the most compassionate thing I can do is hope that these unhappy individuals receive the appropriate therapeutic interventions so they may learn to direct that controlling behaviour inwards in a more constructive way that will improve their situations.
Whilst I cannot condone the damage that these unhappy individuals are doing to others with their litigious and controlling mindset, and outright condemn the institutions that are enabling their dysfunction, the vast majority of destruction they enact is to their own lives, their own bodies and their own relationships.
I have two transsexual friends who were hounded off social media and out of their jobs as equality trainers because they refuse to chenge how they describe themselves – as transsexual women who are biological men presenting as women. As people who are much older than most of those screaming “trans women are women/trans men are men” – 153 years between the two – they continue to speak their minds when meeting people often with the threat of violence hanging over them. Both insist that they need to be honest to fit with the Society they live in.
They should accept themselves the way they are and not damage their bodies with hormones and unnecessary surgeries. There is nothing wrong with being a more “feminine” man or a more “masculine” woman. If they are adults and want to mutilate themselves, it’s their choice, however. Children should not be touched.
Some were operated on when homosexuality was illegal here and in the US. Families pressurised men into surgery often in South America by German surgeons. The men themselves had little choice. So many transsexual women would be healthy gay men if the law had been different.
Some were operated on when homosexuality was illegal here and in the US. Families pressurised men into surgery often in South America by German surgeons. The men themselves had little choice. So many transsexual women would be healthy gay men if the law had been different.
Yep, progressive politics is the opposite of cognitive behavioural therapy. It conditions the mind to see evil where it does not exist, it encourages people to control the actions, speech and thoughts of others, it compounds conceit. It deranges people.
People are losing their jobs today for using the wrong pronoun ie refusing to be forced to call a man a miss or Jane or whatever. These do not appear to be people who need our compassion. More like agree or else.
They should accept themselves the way they are and not damage their bodies with hormones and unnecessary surgeries. There is nothing wrong with being a more “feminine” man or a more “masculine” woman. If they are adults and want to mutilate themselves, it’s their choice, however. Children should not be touched.
Wrong.
It’s not compassion that has led us here. It’s self interest.
It’s not compassion when those most vociferous about it, have none for the black or Asian victims of gang violence in cities in America, underperforming lower class white boys, Asian college admission candidates, male suicide or domestic violence victims, young girls in a dozen cities in Britain with grooming gangs….
A large part of the support for these trans idiots are college educated, middle to upper class women. You think they support these out of pity or compassion? They know very well that the arguments against allowing trans “women” in female sports or spaces, if they accept them, would undercut their cosy quotas, privileges and diversity seats.
I don’t think you’ve understood my post. It is a wrong understanding of compassion that has tricked people into going along with this insanity or into being silent.
Most progressive types I’ve met are incapable of describing compassion yet they insist this is their motivation.
Please read it again. Try not to confuse what you currently think I’ve written with what I actually have.
I think you’ll find we will have to agree to agree on much.
Yeah not compassion more people pleasers.
I can have compassion for someone, but still object to them hurting others.
Agreed. One of the root semantic distortions powering this ideology is conflating “compassion” with “you must agree with their imaginings of what’s best for society”. Thus, disagreement is inseparable from committing “violence” against them. That’s a dangerous weaponization of “compassion”.
Agreed. One of the root semantic distortions powering this ideology is conflating “compassion” with “you must agree with their imaginings of what’s best for society”. Thus, disagreement is inseparable from committing “violence” against them. That’s a dangerous weaponization of “compassion”.
Yeah not compassion more people pleasers.
I can have compassion for someone, but still object to them hurting others.
The middle or upper classes these days seem more prone to delusion than the man in the street. Not all of them of course.
It’s certainly not compassion when trans people label women they don’t like “TERFS” as a prelude to using violence against them.
I don’t think you’ve understood my post. It is a wrong understanding of compassion that has tricked people into going along with this insanity or into being silent.
Most progressive types I’ve met are incapable of describing compassion yet they insist this is their motivation.
Please read it again. Try not to confuse what you currently think I’ve written with what I actually have.
I think you’ll find we will have to agree to agree on much.
The middle or upper classes these days seem more prone to delusion than the man in the street. Not all of them of course.
It’s certainly not compassion when trans people label women they don’t like “TERFS” as a prelude to using violence against them.
Bingo!!!!
Rather than a wish that we all could be free from suffering I think compassion is more an expression of willingness to share the burden of suffering, which is of course not a realistic thing to actually do in most cases of suffering, but the expression of willingness to do so assumes that this expression will have a morally uplifting effect which helps to relieve at least the mental anguish associated with the suffering. This is subtly different from empathy which is the actual ability to understand how the suffering affects the person and to be able to convey that understanding.
The attempt at understanding is confounded by the fact of the amorphous label of transgenderism covering several widely differing conditions none of which is a mental illness in the classical sense of mental illness. Gender dysphoria in the very young is not a consciously modulated dysphoric reaction to gender which it would be ludicrous to imagine a young child has any understanding of, but a misperceived link between various apparent prohibitions on favourite toys, names, games and clothes, and the bodily apparatus the child knows defines him/her as boy/girl. If this is allowed or – God forbid even encouraged – to become an obsession then it will morph into a hatred of the child’s own body – a body dysmorphia – and from there to gender dysphoria approaching puberty, the child now acutely aware that the ravages of puberty are only going to make the desired opposite sex role playing even more treacherous.
Since this is a partly societally induced partly selv adopted statement of passion, true compassion is neither humanly possible nor indeed therapeutically relevant, since as you say the impulse to suffer with, alongside the sufferer in this case involves a contrived positive consensual involvement in the delusional (more accurately illusory) narrative of being the opposite of what one is. Empathy with the contingencies of the condition, lack of friends, feelings of suicidality, depression, loneliness and hopelessness etc is however a possibility. The parental role is neither empathy nor compassion but unconditional love, which nevertheless still does not mean buying into the narrative.
“Gender dysphoria” making its debut in middle aged men (never women note) is something completely different and not a dysphoria at all. These men are not at war with their bodies at all and do not suffer discomfort with their maleness. They are usually heterosexual and often married with kids. Their condition is more akin to an addiction and often described as a fetish. It is erotic attraction to an image of the self as woman. Ray Blanchard called it autogynephilia. Autoandrophilia does not exist. Being compassionate with these people means helping them to reflect on the possible negative consequences of their behaviour for the people they are in contact with, particularly families, but also women and children generally, and encouraging them to limit and moderate that behaviour so that its effect on other people is minimal.
I have no wish to share the burden of others’ suffering. That would not be compassionate to me. I have no desire to share the burden of being “trans.” Neither should my wife and daughters when in changing rooms or engaging in sports.
Compassion according to Theravadan scripture is the wish that I, you and others be free from dukkha (unsatisfactoriness.) There are other definitions, but this is the one I find most useful and the one I’m working with.
The compassion I have for “trans people” takes the form of wishing that they be free from suffering, knowing that the only way to be free from suffering in their case is mental development. I cannot solve their problems. They can only do so by learning techniques that allow them to cope with a life not in accordance with their perceptions.
I’d suggest you consider the definition I gave of compassion more examination before amending it or putting it to one side.
It covers a lot of ground.
If you’d like to read more on the topic of compassion see “With compassionate understanding” by Steve and Rosemary Weissman. Their work is very much based on the Pali canon and tailored for lay people and can be of use to both religious and secular people.
Were more people to understand compassion as I’ve described, we would be in far less of a mess than we are with this current trans lunacy.
We have to love them but cannot be partaker of their delusions.
Very wise and helpful thoughts. Thank you.
We have to love them but cannot be partaker of their delusions.
Very wise and helpful thoughts. Thank you.
I have no wish to share the burden of others’ suffering. That would not be compassionate to me. I have no desire to share the burden of being “trans.” Neither should my wife and daughters when in changing rooms or engaging in sports.
Compassion according to Theravadan scripture is the wish that I, you and others be free from dukkha (unsatisfactoriness.) There are other definitions, but this is the one I find most useful and the one I’m working with.
The compassion I have for “trans people” takes the form of wishing that they be free from suffering, knowing that the only way to be free from suffering in their case is mental development. I cannot solve their problems. They can only do so by learning techniques that allow them to cope with a life not in accordance with their perceptions.
I’d suggest you consider the definition I gave of compassion more examination before amending it or putting it to one side.
It covers a lot of ground.
If you’d like to read more on the topic of compassion see “With compassionate understanding” by Steve and Rosemary Weissman. Their work is very much based on the Pali canon and tailored for lay people and can be of use to both religious and secular people.
Were more people to understand compassion as I’ve described, we would be in far less of a mess than we are with this current trans lunacy.
Bravo. I thank you for clarifying for me so many muddled thoughts regarding the “trans men are women” blatant lie.
I do not want to appear unsympathetic to men who feel the need to dress as women; I believe we should be true to ourselves.
I am however enraged that men in frocks feel they have every right to share the private spaces women need. Women bleed They take longer to use a toilet or changing room because of dress, undergarments, sanitary wear and personal hygiene issues, as well as the need to attend to young children and assist with their toileting, changing or dressing. Men, ie, people with penises and testosterone, (no matter their attire) have no right to be there or witness any of this. It is a violation of female privacy and safety. Most women feel outrage that they feel pressured to accept the trans activist lobby’s imposition of their freedoms, their private spaces. To lack compassion labels a questioning, fearful woman ‘a bigot’.
I have sympathy for men who have transitioned fully.To live as a woman is a challenge but it is something they need to do and they have undergone invasive surgery and hormonal treatment to correct an imbalance.This full transition of course muddies the transgender debate waters.
I feel you summed it up perfectly with the lines folk “realise that it isn’t compassionate to indulge delusions. That by affirming a persons delusions (lying to them) you take them further away from what would help them, and what would be compassionate – learning tools and techniques that allow them to cope with a world not in accordance with their perceptions.”
Thank you. I know my anger is justified and women everywhere and the men who love and support them, must stand together to fight this madness many would like us to accept as ‘normal’. Sane people cannot normalise ‘delusions’.
It’s called tough love.
It’s called tough love.
Surely compassion requires competence, hence being trained in First Aid and it is not compassionate to indulge in delusions. If one is not trained in first aid one does not touch the injured but goes for help.
Comassion requires attention and surely one should prioritise those at greatest risk of death?
If you are talking about the desire to help in a material way, yes, that requires competency. But I don’t have to be knowledgable in first aid to have compassion for someone who is suffering. Compassion is the wish that I you and others be free from suffering. This compassion may motivate me to learn first aid. It may also motivate me to learn to swim, it can be the motivation to learn many skills.
Competency is needed to understand that compassion has many facets. And that indulgence of delusion is not one of them.
Now, it’s not clear from your post – is it that you believe trans people are at greatest risk of death? If that was your point, you might want to read this on the topic.
https://thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/
As for to whom compassion should be directed towards, the answer is towards the end of my original post – all.
Nobody is going to get help for them. Most of them don’t want it I would think. Besides it might become a crime to help them the way the tories are going.
If you are talking about the desire to help in a material way, yes, that requires competency. But I don’t have to be knowledgable in first aid to have compassion for someone who is suffering. Compassion is the wish that I you and others be free from suffering. This compassion may motivate me to learn first aid. It may also motivate me to learn to swim, it can be the motivation to learn many skills.
Competency is needed to understand that compassion has many facets. And that indulgence of delusion is not one of them.
Now, it’s not clear from your post – is it that you believe trans people are at greatest risk of death? If that was your point, you might want to read this on the topic.
https://thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/
As for to whom compassion should be directed towards, the answer is towards the end of my original post – all.
Nobody is going to get help for them. Most of them don’t want it I would think. Besides it might become a crime to help them the way the tories are going.
Speaking the truth in love fits. Agreeing with falsehoods is not real love.
Yes, but also people should be taught that compassion can apply to how one treats, or reacts to, suffering of any degree. But that compassion does not, cannot, apply to facts about others. Thus to say that we should show compassion to a man who now feels he is a woman makes no sense at all, and can only result in the kind of confusion the author describes. Regardless of what the postmodern woke creed may say, feelings and facts really are quite different – that has to be a basic tenet prior to any/all rational discussion. And it may be worth discovering if someone accepts that prior to engaging in discussion at all. However much a man may FEEL he is a woman, and perhaps deserve compassion for that; it can never alter the FACT that he is, and always will be, a man.
I think it would help if you looked again at how I defined compassion.
You can have compassion for anyone who is suffering. You can wish that they were not. In the knowledge that often the only way out of the suffering would be mental development.
If a man thinks he is a woman, my wish is that he would come to learn how to cope with a life not in accordance with his perceptions rather than coerce others in to believing or going along with his delusion. That is what compassion would look like. In a more compassionate society, he would be offered these techniques. As it is, we are coercing one another to go along with their delusions and treating mental formations with surgery.
I think it would help if you looked again at how I defined compassion.
You can have compassion for anyone who is suffering. You can wish that they were not. In the knowledge that often the only way out of the suffering would be mental development.
If a man thinks he is a woman, my wish is that he would come to learn how to cope with a life not in accordance with his perceptions rather than coerce others in to believing or going along with his delusion. That is what compassion would look like. In a more compassionate society, he would be offered these techniques. As it is, we are coercing one another to go along with their delusions and treating mental formations with surgery.
Nicely said…and, indeed, truly compassionate. But what does this actually mean?
In reality, the hurly-burly of our day-to-day requires us…allows us…enables us to — as you say — “continue with our lives as they are”. No more, no less.
Yes, in the abstract, and when we sign checks to various charities or hear about a particularly horrendous tragedy, yes — we can feel, quite sincerely, that there should be less suffering in the world. But most typically we mail the check (or submit the e-payment) and we’re good. Life goes on.
Save for the odd Saint, we all have enough on our plate …and part of that ‘plateful’ is dealing with our own suffering, carrying our own particular cross, whatever it may be.
166K people die every single day. Today, not us. The dead — most of the time — remain somewhere else, happening to someone else. And so we go on. And truthfully, we go on carrying with us a certain bland indifference (as cruel and heartless as it sounds) to prevent being crippled by an otherwise endless grief.
Certainly, when circumstance calls our attention to a particular tragedy, our broad indifference, our ‘equanimity’, such as it is, is pierced — and we stand, stunned by the Falling Man, who threw himself into that crystal-blue New York morning to save himself from the the fires inside those Twin Towers. And we think, ‘My God…what have we become that this is our shared Today.”
And yet we go on.
And truthfully, in the litany of Horrible Things destroying Lives across the World, the man that imagines himself woman is a very little thing, deserving of a very little compassion. Rather we should save it for those who would not ask it, who do not expect it. We should reserve our hearts for those who do not, with offended outrage, demand it.
Yes it does. As the late, great Christopher Hitchens warned, ‘distrust compassion’.
It’s a bit like empathy – necessary for goodness but not sufficient. And often a double-edged sword
My first comment on Unherd: this was excellently expressed. I am a vicar so will need to speak to my congregations on this point. Please may I quote you, probably as ‘one commenter on a news website’ – or by name, if you prefer?: “Without equanimity, compassion falls into either anger or grief. And we can see plenty of this from trans-extremists.”- along with a paraphrase of your definition, which is totally consonant with the Bible. The train of thought is very evocative of Jonathan Haidt in ‘the Coddling of the American Mind’, but I think you said it more succinctly and incisively.
Indeed. An example of false compassion might be assuring morbidly obese people that their over-eating is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, that they should be ‘body positive’ and that to criticize their choices and diet as unhealthy is ‘fat phobic’ and discriminatory. One of these body positive obese models died of a massive heart attack just the other day, she was only in her 30’s. Is it really compassionate to go along with and re-enforce such people’s delusions or is it in truth just virtue signaling cowardice?
When a girl with extreme anorexia looks at herself in the mirror, she sees a fat person, everyone else sees a living skeleton. Should we go along with the idea that she is indeed fat? Should we validate ‘her truth’?
When a middle aged, paunchy, knobbley-kneed, lantern jawed ‘trans woman’ looks at herself in the mirror, presumably she sees a beautiful woman, yet everyone else sees a ridiculous pantomime dame. I really do not mind going along for the sake of common decency, with the idea that such transvestites are ‘women’, but to actually expect me to believe it to the extent that I’d be quite happy for such a person to share a changing room or showers with my fifteen year old daughter? Oh please!
Of course now, many with trans identities are not suffering from any particular identifiable condition for which compassion would be athe appropriate response. That is the whole point of Gender Self Id – it removes, and negates, the need for a diagnosis of dysphoria.
And even then, compassion does not mean going along with someone’s deluded inner feeling that they are something which they are not. It is one thing to have fellow feeling, another to have to validate that feeling.
I read your post carefully but while I agree with your general argument, I don’t agree with your definition of compassion, “feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others”, nor of equanimity, “calmness and composure, especially in a difficult situation”.
Where we agree is that compassion is about empathy. But why should my compassion for another entitle that other to impose their “identity” on me, with all its consequences, irrespective of my feelings? To accept this would be to subordinate my feelings to that other person. In other words “trans” people are demanding more compassion from others than they themselves are prepared to extend to those others. This has real world consequences. And because that is so and because we live in proximity to others within a society, the identity someone feels must not be allowed to impose on the identities of the majority where it is to their detriment. Instead, the majority in a compassionate society needs to find ways of helping “trans” people, IMO a mainly pychological delusion where it is not merely a calculating way to enter a sex segregated space, to cope with their delusion.
And that brings me to your well expressed sentence: “by affirming a persons delusions (lying to them) you take them further away from what would help them, and what would be compassionate – learning tools and techniques that allow them to cope with a world not in accordance with their perceptions.”
One lifelong friend of mine is currently rather upset with me regarding my views on trans and non-binary identity, and told me quite crossly to “be kind” the other day. I responded by saying that it isn’t kind to encourage already vulnerable individuals to think that they can control how others speak and think about gender and sex or how our society references sex and gender, let alone mutilate their bodies when the issue they have is not with their bodies, but with their minds.
All this ideology does is contribute to their misery, it doesn’t empower them to be themselves or accept themselves as they are, it doesn’t foster understanding and inclusion, it ensures that most with healthy boundaries minimise their contact with them rather than deal with someone trying to control how they think and the language they use, and sets people on a path of unnecessary lifelong medical interventions that all come with severe side effects and complications.
Wrong.
It’s not compassion that has led us here. It’s self interest.
It’s not compassion when those most vociferous about it, have none for the black or Asian victims of gang violence in cities in America, underperforming lower class white boys, Asian college admission candidates, male suicide or domestic violence victims, young girls in a dozen cities in Britain with grooming gangs….
A large part of the support for these trans idiots are college educated, middle to upper class women. You think they support these out of pity or compassion? They know very well that the arguments against allowing trans “women” in female sports or spaces, if they accept them, would undercut their cosy quotas, privileges and diversity seats.
Bingo!!!!
Rather than a wish that we all could be free from suffering I think compassion is more an expression of willingness to share the burden of suffering, which is of course not a realistic thing to actually do in most cases of suffering, but the expression of willingness to do so assumes that this expression will have a morally uplifting effect which helps to relieve at least the mental anguish associated with the suffering. This is subtly different from empathy which is the actual ability to understand how the suffering affects the person and to be able to convey that understanding.
The attempt at understanding is confounded by the fact of the amorphous label of transgenderism covering several widely differing conditions none of which is a mental illness in the classical sense of mental illness. Gender dysphoria in the very young is not a consciously modulated dysphoric reaction to gender which it would be ludicrous to imagine a young child has any understanding of, but a misperceived link between various apparent prohibitions on favourite toys, names, games and clothes, and the bodily apparatus the child knows defines him/her as boy/girl. If this is allowed or – God forbid even encouraged – to become an obsession then it will morph into a hatred of the child’s own body – a body dysmorphia – and from there to gender dysphoria approaching puberty, the child now acutely aware that the ravages of puberty are only going to make the desired opposite sex role playing even more treacherous.
Since this is a partly societally induced partly selv adopted statement of passion, true compassion is neither humanly possible nor indeed therapeutically relevant, since as you say the impulse to suffer with, alongside the sufferer in this case involves a contrived positive consensual involvement in the delusional (more accurately illusory) narrative of being the opposite of what one is. Empathy with the contingencies of the condition, lack of friends, feelings of suicidality, depression, loneliness and hopelessness etc is however a possibility. The parental role is neither empathy nor compassion but unconditional love, which nevertheless still does not mean buying into the narrative.
“Gender dysphoria” making its debut in middle aged men (never women note) is something completely different and not a dysphoria at all. These men are not at war with their bodies at all and do not suffer discomfort with their maleness. They are usually heterosexual and often married with kids. Their condition is more akin to an addiction and often described as a fetish. It is erotic attraction to an image of the self as woman. Ray Blanchard called it autogynephilia. Autoandrophilia does not exist. Being compassionate with these people means helping them to reflect on the possible negative consequences of their behaviour for the people they are in contact with, particularly families, but also women and children generally, and encouraging them to limit and moderate that behaviour so that its effect on other people is minimal.
Bravo. I thank you for clarifying for me so many muddled thoughts regarding the “trans men are women” blatant lie.
I do not want to appear unsympathetic to men who feel the need to dress as women; I believe we should be true to ourselves.
I am however enraged that men in frocks feel they have every right to share the private spaces women need. Women bleed They take longer to use a toilet or changing room because of dress, undergarments, sanitary wear and personal hygiene issues, as well as the need to attend to young children and assist with their toileting, changing or dressing. Men, ie, people with penises and testosterone, (no matter their attire) have no right to be there or witness any of this. It is a violation of female privacy and safety. Most women feel outrage that they feel pressured to accept the trans activist lobby’s imposition of their freedoms, their private spaces. To lack compassion labels a questioning, fearful woman ‘a bigot’.
I have sympathy for men who have transitioned fully.To live as a woman is a challenge but it is something they need to do and they have undergone invasive surgery and hormonal treatment to correct an imbalance.This full transition of course muddies the transgender debate waters.
I feel you summed it up perfectly with the lines folk “realise that it isn’t compassionate to indulge delusions. That by affirming a persons delusions (lying to them) you take them further away from what would help them, and what would be compassionate – learning tools and techniques that allow them to cope with a world not in accordance with their perceptions.”
Thank you. I know my anger is justified and women everywhere and the men who love and support them, must stand together to fight this madness many would like us to accept as ‘normal’. Sane people cannot normalise ‘delusions’.
Surely compassion requires competence, hence being trained in First Aid and it is not compassionate to indulge in delusions. If one is not trained in first aid one does not touch the injured but goes for help.
Comassion requires attention and surely one should prioritise those at greatest risk of death?
Speaking the truth in love fits. Agreeing with falsehoods is not real love.
Yes, but also people should be taught that compassion can apply to how one treats, or reacts to, suffering of any degree. But that compassion does not, cannot, apply to facts about others. Thus to say that we should show compassion to a man who now feels he is a woman makes no sense at all, and can only result in the kind of confusion the author describes. Regardless of what the postmodern woke creed may say, feelings and facts really are quite different – that has to be a basic tenet prior to any/all rational discussion. And it may be worth discovering if someone accepts that prior to engaging in discussion at all. However much a man may FEEL he is a woman, and perhaps deserve compassion for that; it can never alter the FACT that he is, and always will be, a man.
Nicely said…and, indeed, truly compassionate. But what does this actually mean?
In reality, the hurly-burly of our day-to-day requires us…allows us…enables us to — as you say — “continue with our lives as they are”. No more, no less.
Yes, in the abstract, and when we sign checks to various charities or hear about a particularly horrendous tragedy, yes — we can feel, quite sincerely, that there should be less suffering in the world. But most typically we mail the check (or submit the e-payment) and we’re good. Life goes on.
Save for the odd Saint, we all have enough on our plate …and part of that ‘plateful’ is dealing with our own suffering, carrying our own particular cross, whatever it may be.
166K people die every single day. Today, not us. The dead — most of the time — remain somewhere else, happening to someone else. And so we go on. And truthfully, we go on carrying with us a certain bland indifference (as cruel and heartless as it sounds) to prevent being crippled by an otherwise endless grief.
Certainly, when circumstance calls our attention to a particular tragedy, our broad indifference, our ‘equanimity’, such as it is, is pierced — and we stand, stunned by the Falling Man, who threw himself into that crystal-blue New York morning to save himself from the the fires inside those Twin Towers. And we think, ‘My God…what have we become that this is our shared Today.”
And yet we go on.
And truthfully, in the litany of Horrible Things destroying Lives across the World, the man that imagines himself woman is a very little thing, deserving of a very little compassion. Rather we should save it for those who would not ask it, who do not expect it. We should reserve our hearts for those who do not, with offended outrage, demand it.
Yes it does. As the late, great Christopher Hitchens warned, ‘distrust compassion’.
It’s a bit like empathy – necessary for goodness but not sufficient. And often a double-edged sword
It might be useful for people to be taught or at least encouraged to discuss or think about what compassion actually is. What qualities should compassion be balanced with? And what does compassion become if not balanced? For often, people are told that if they don’t go along with the lie that “trans women are women” that they lack compassion. And that if we don’t have compassion, we should feel shame.
The reality is that compassion (the wish that I, you and others be free from suffering) must be balanced with equanimity (the understanding that I, you and others will without exception suffer in this life.) Without equanimity, compassion falls into either anger or grief. And we can see plenty of this from trans-extremists. Likewise, without compassion, equanimity falls into indifference.
Only by contemplating what compassion is and how it looks in practice might folk realise that it isn’t compassionate to indulge delusions. That by affirming a persons delusions (lying to them) you take them further away from what would help them, and what would be compassionate – learning tools and techniques that allow them to cope with a world not in accordance with their perceptions. To understand that their condition, be it gender dysphoria, body dysmorphia, AGF or whatever it is, places them on the margins of society. And that society will accommodate them to a degree, but that compassion has also to be directed to the vast majority who do not suffer from these conditions.
Compassion for all would mean the majority of us can continue with our lives as they are: segregated by sex when it matters, and those with these conditions can be offered help in the form of mental tools and techniques if they want them and are willing to practice them.
Compassion and equanimity need to be supported by wisdom.
“But — not to put too fine a point on it — humans aren’t fish.”
Try telling Sturgeon and Salmond.
Very unfair on Salmond, who has strongly attacked Sturgeon’s position on trans:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11721761/Alex-Salmond-slams-Nicola-Sturgeon-nonsense-gender-rules-overhaul.html
Just saying what 66% of the Scottish population want to say abnd can’t without being branded as transphobic or bigots…
I’m guessing that Paddy Taylor was referring simply to their last names, not to their positions in the trans debate.
Yes Salmond and the Alba party have been very critical of this mince. Others in the critical independence movement have been campaigning against it for years. Sadly labour fell in lockstep with the NuSNP and Greens because they all want appeal to Students and graduate midwits. They are also eyeing the votes of the Titiana McGrath’s immature school kids who will get to vote in the next Holyrood election. Salmond is standing for Scottish Enlightenment values. He also recognises that independence at the teat of Brussels is untenable. He just has to map out these positions more volubly so that they can call him Scotland’s Farage!
The debtor is servant to the lender. In the end their help will make you their slave.
The debtor is servant to the lender. In the end their help will make you their slave.
Just saying what 66% of the Scottish population want to say abnd can’t without being branded as transphobic or bigots…
I’m guessing that Paddy Taylor was referring simply to their last names, not to their positions in the trans debate.
Yes Salmond and the Alba party have been very critical of this mince. Others in the critical independence movement have been campaigning against it for years. Sadly labour fell in lockstep with the NuSNP and Greens because they all want appeal to Students and graduate midwits. They are also eyeing the votes of the Titiana McGrath’s immature school kids who will get to vote in the next Holyrood election. Salmond is standing for Scottish Enlightenment values. He also recognises that independence at the teat of Brussels is untenable. He just has to map out these positions more volubly so that they can call him Scotland’s Farage!
They both sound like aquatic animals 🙂
Fishself has been triggered by this statement!
A case of Roe v Weighed?
Should the scandal be referred to as Billingsgate?
‘Cod War’ more like.
‘Cod War’ more like.
Very subtle. Took a minute to get that one. Good work.
Genius comment.
Should the scandal be referred to as Billingsgate?
Very subtle. Took a minute to get that one. Good work.
Genius comment.
A case of Roe v Weighed?
Boom, boom! again, Paddy.
Sadly lost on the distressingly literal Frank McC.
Sadly lost on the distressingly literal Frank McC.
Very unfair on Salmond, who has strongly attacked Sturgeon’s position on trans:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11721761/Alex-Salmond-slams-Nicola-Sturgeon-nonsense-gender-rules-overhaul.html
They both sound like aquatic animals 🙂
Fishself has been triggered by this statement!
Boom, boom! again, Paddy.
“But — not to put too fine a point on it — humans aren’t fish.”
Try telling Sturgeon and Salmond.
”Yet the “trans women are women” answer remains an intriguing one. To my mind, the fact that 34% neither agree nor disagree is telling. And I don’t blame people for feeling befuddled.”
People are stupid, ‘transwomen’ are just disturbed men who are being pandered to – to everyone’s harm.
haha
Much confusion can be avoided ,if before answering the question, “are transwomen women?” the question, “define Transwoman” is answered first. Then it will turn out, because by no means everyone understands the same thing, that this question cannot be answered. For now, I stick to biology. XX is female, XY is male. And anyone who has problems with this should see a psychiatrist.
Thank you for pointing out the need for definitions. As Kathleen Stock has pointed out, the obfuscation (conflating ‘sex’ with ‘gender’, using ‘transwoman’ as a cover term for all manifestations of ‘transwoman’hood) has been a very successful strategy for the trans rights organisations. The media, pollsters, etc have colluded by their lack of precise language.
Isn’t it just a matter of semantics? Is a woman a person born with a female body or is a woman someone who feels they are a woman?
Basically, a woman is a person, who, determined by her chromosomes, feels like a woman. And there has always been a very small group of individuals, where something went wrong in the embryonic stage, and who had both male and female physical characteristics, and where it was indeed unclear whether they are male or female. The gender assigned at birth can become problematic in these individuals later in life.
Then there is also a very small group where gender dysphoria occurs from childhood. Physically, they are normal boys or girls, but in their minds they feel they are the opposite sex.
But the huge increase in recent years of individuals where, in later, adolescent age, they start feeling “different” is pathological. It strikes me as mass hysteria, and must be stopped.
“It strikes me as mass hysteria, and must be stopped.”
How?
“It strikes me as mass hysteria, and must be stopped.”
How?
Basically, a woman is a person, who, determined by her chromosomes, feels like a woman. And there has always been a very small group of individuals, where something went wrong in the embryonic stage, and who had both male and female physical characteristics, and where it was indeed unclear whether they are male or female. The gender assigned at birth can become problematic in these individuals later in life.
Then there is also a very small group where gender dysphoria occurs from childhood. Physically, they are normal boys or girls, but in their minds they feel they are the opposite sex.
But the huge increase in recent years of individuals where, in later, adolescent age, they start feeling “different” is pathological. It strikes me as mass hysteria, and must be stopped.
People are confusing biology with social roles. Native American groups allowed men who wanted to be sqaws to fill that social role without drugs or surgery. Of course, they were also not permitted to attack biological women.
Thank you for pointing out the need for definitions. As Kathleen Stock has pointed out, the obfuscation (conflating ‘sex’ with ‘gender’, using ‘transwoman’ as a cover term for all manifestations of ‘transwoman’hood) has been a very successful strategy for the trans rights organisations. The media, pollsters, etc have colluded by their lack of precise language.
Isn’t it just a matter of semantics? Is a woman a person born with a female body or is a woman someone who feels they are a woman?
People are confusing biology with social roles. Native American groups allowed men who wanted to be sqaws to fill that social role without drugs or surgery. Of course, they were also not permitted to attack biological women.
Some people undoubtedly are stupid. No doubt they imagine that the emperor must be wearing beautiful new clothes, because they have been told so. And if they can’t see them right now, then no biggie. A different vantage point or a change in the light is bound to put that right.
But there are a great many more people who are circumspect. People who realise that openly challenging the new gender identity orthodoxy might well threaten their acceptance in social circles, their security of employment, their political affiliations, even their physical safety.
Because, as Orwell put it in Nineteen Eighty Four:
People are not stupid. For ‘Agree’ read ‘This is the correct answer. For ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ read ‘anything I say will be used against me’. The only ones being honest are the ‘Disagrees’.
Nobody alive thinks trans women are women. Anyone who has done any research or polling knows how difficult it is to get an honest, unfiltered opinion on any subject, let alone one so mired in controversy.
My main concern, regarding the normalisation of trans identities, is not regarding grown men who believe they can become women. Providing they don’t have genital surgery (which few do), they can detransition successfully. I had a good friend who did so.
Very real harm is being done to children and young people, particularly to girls and those of both sexes on the autism spectrum. Testosterone alone will dramatically and permanently alter the female body. Put ‘detransitioners’ into any search and witness the carnage.
They themselves think they are. Their entire constructed identity depends on it.
And others are so committed to being progressive that they are able to convince themselves that – a woman is anyone who says they are a woman.
Do they though? Do they really? I can’t help thinking that the torrent of hatred and rampant misogyny we see coming from so many trans-identified male activists is because, deep down, they know not only that they aren’t women, but that they never can be.
Do they though? Do they really? I can’t help thinking that the torrent of hatred and rampant misogyny we see coming from so many trans-identified male activists is because, deep down, they know not only that they aren’t women, but that they never can be.
Well said. Spot on.
They themselves think they are. Their entire constructed identity depends on it.
And others are so committed to being progressive that they are able to convince themselves that – a woman is anyone who says they are a woman.
Well said. Spot on.
Much confusion can be avoided ,if before answering the question, “are transwomen women?” the question, “define Transwoman” is answered first. Then it will turn out, because by no means everyone understands the same thing, that this question cannot be answered. For now, I stick to biology. XX is female, XY is male. And anyone who has problems with this should see a psychiatrist.
Some people undoubtedly are stupid. No doubt they imagine that the emperor must be wearing beautiful new clothes, because they have been told so. And if they can’t see them right now, then no biggie. A different vantage point or a change in the light is bound to put that right.
But there are a great many more people who are circumspect. People who realise that openly challenging the new gender identity orthodoxy might well threaten their acceptance in social circles, their security of employment, their political affiliations, even their physical safety.
Because, as Orwell put it in Nineteen Eighty Four:
People are not stupid. For ‘Agree’ read ‘This is the correct answer. For ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ read ‘anything I say will be used against me’. The only ones being honest are the ‘Disagrees’.
Nobody alive thinks trans women are women. Anyone who has done any research or polling knows how difficult it is to get an honest, unfiltered opinion on any subject, let alone one so mired in controversy.
My main concern, regarding the normalisation of trans identities, is not regarding grown men who believe they can become women. Providing they don’t have genital surgery (which few do), they can detransition successfully. I had a good friend who did so.
Very real harm is being done to children and young people, particularly to girls and those of both sexes on the autism spectrum. Testosterone alone will dramatically and permanently alter the female body. Put ‘detransitioners’ into any search and witness the carnage.
”Yet the “trans women are women” answer remains an intriguing one. To my mind, the fact that 34% neither agree nor disagree is telling. And I don’t blame people for feeling befuddled.”
People are stupid, ‘transwomen’ are just disturbed men who are being pandered to – to everyone’s harm.
haha
If i’m reading Kathleen right here, she’s arguing that transactivist overreach is finally overreaching itself. The huge irony is that those responsible, such as Nicola Sturgeon, intended precisely the opposite.
I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but on the horizon do we detect a new mantra?
Trans overreach is overreach
If i’m reading Kathleen right here, she’s arguing that transactivist overreach is finally overreaching itself. The huge irony is that those responsible, such as Nicola Sturgeon, intended precisely the opposite.
I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but on the horizon do we detect a new mantra?
Trans overreach is overreach
“As transactivists who frequently deploy the phrase no doubt realise, the repetition of the word “women” produces a slightly hypnotic effect. After all, it looks tautological — a bit like asking whether sausage dogs are dogs, or armchairs are chairs.”
And that is why we, ie people with a grasp of reality, must only use the terms trans identifying male rather than ‘transwoman’ etc.
Not only because the term transwomen etc is effective propaganda but also confusing. For a long time, at the start of this cult, I thought a transwoman was a woman who wanted to be a man. And I expect many still do.
Many indeed still do that was part of the success, the capture of language. I’m afraid I’ve ended up just calling them “men who say they are women”. Identity politics has proved a Trojan horse to many.
Just “pretend-women,” please.
Just “pretend-women,” please.
More like the confusion from asserting that hotdogs are dogs or hamburgers contain ham.
Transports are ports.
Transistors are sisters
Transistors are sisters
Transports are ports.
Some years ago and before this ‘blew up’ as it has, I read a column that said, “substitute the word ‘fake’ for ‘trans’ to ascertain which way one should read the information. Works for me. That is not to be derogatory, just simply a way to remember which way is which.
Or substitute the prefix “non-“ in place of the prefix “trans.”
Or substitute the prefix “non-“ in place of the prefix “trans.”
Many indeed still do that was part of the success, the capture of language. I’m afraid I’ve ended up just calling them “men who say they are women”. Identity politics has proved a Trojan horse to many.
More like the confusion from asserting that hotdogs are dogs or hamburgers contain ham.
Some years ago and before this ‘blew up’ as it has, I read a column that said, “substitute the word ‘fake’ for ‘trans’ to ascertain which way one should read the information. Works for me. That is not to be derogatory, just simply a way to remember which way is which.
“As transactivists who frequently deploy the phrase no doubt realise, the repetition of the word “women” produces a slightly hypnotic effect. After all, it looks tautological — a bit like asking whether sausage dogs are dogs, or armchairs are chairs.”
And that is why we, ie people with a grasp of reality, must only use the terms trans identifying male rather than ‘transwoman’ etc.
Not only because the term transwomen etc is effective propaganda but also confusing. For a long time, at the start of this cult, I thought a transwoman was a woman who wanted to be a man. And I expect many still do.
Adults get to customize their meatsuit as they see fit and are free to present as whatever sex they wish.
However, changing sex is impossible. Men remain men and women remain women regardless of how they choose to appear.
“Transgender” is a misnomer, anyway. No one is changing their gender. In fact, trans people and advocates claim gender is immutable.
Yes, apparently even genderfluidity is immutable. I’d love somebody to talk that one through for me.
It’s funny how something that doesn’t really exist and whose existence can’t be proven can be ‘immutable.’
Ironic how they believe so strongly in stereotypes. That’s at least part of why they hate feminists so much. They can’t stand the idea of a woman being a weight lifter or a soldier.
Yes, apparently even genderfluidity is immutable. I’d love somebody to talk that one through for me.
It’s funny how something that doesn’t really exist and whose existence can’t be proven can be ‘immutable.’
Ironic how they believe so strongly in stereotypes. That’s at least part of why they hate feminists so much. They can’t stand the idea of a woman being a weight lifter or a soldier.
“Transgender” is a misnomer, anyway. No one is changing their gender. In fact, trans people and advocates claim gender is immutable.
Adults get to customize their meatsuit as they see fit and are free to present as whatever sex they wish.
However, changing sex is impossible. Men remain men and women remain women regardless of how they choose to appear.
The phrase doesn’t work. It can’t. Yet we have all succumbed to acting like it does to preserve our social status, to retain jobs, friends, memberships, community standing and to give the appearance of tolerance and kindness. But we are reticent, unconvinced and afraid to cause offence all at once, which leads to confusing polls.
I am no historian, but off the top I cannot think of any great civilization whose main guiding principle was kindness. It’s subjective hogwash and lacks any substance whatsoever to animate and galvanize a population towards greatness. Under what spell have we been cast that this bullshit is allowed to stand?
What phrase? If you define a ‘great civilisation’ as a territorially and economically large one, then it will have achieved that aim by colonisation of people and territory which at the least were reluctant and probably needed a degree of violent enforcement – not exactly compatible with kindness. I suggest that you recalibrate your definitions of ‘great’ and ‘civilisation’.
I suggest you improve your reading skills. Until your last sentence, you were in complete agreement with the commenter you took to task.
The phrase the article is about – trans women are women. They are not and can never be. In our attempt to accommodate this madness we are doing all manner of mental and social gymnastics that is turning out badly for everyone. This kind of insane ‘kindness’ and tolerance is leading us astray. How you try to conflate colonization with this very specific point is, well, weird. Greatness to me goes well beyond territory and economy – those may assist the grand plan but I’m certain that flourishing societies could be found that don’t dovetail with that. However, seeking truth is a cornerstone of all. Trans ideology has no basis in truth and we are turning a blind eye to that…..to our detriment. As the say, the truth hurts.
I suggest you improve your reading skills. Until your last sentence, you were in complete agreement with the commenter you took to task.
The phrase the article is about – trans women are women. They are not and can never be. In our attempt to accommodate this madness we are doing all manner of mental and social gymnastics that is turning out badly for everyone. This kind of insane ‘kindness’ and tolerance is leading us astray. How you try to conflate colonization with this very specific point is, well, weird. Greatness to me goes well beyond territory and economy – those may assist the grand plan but I’m certain that flourishing societies could be found that don’t dovetail with that. However, seeking truth is a cornerstone of all. Trans ideology has no basis in truth and we are turning a blind eye to that…..to our detriment. As the say, the truth hurts.
What phrase? If you define a ‘great civilisation’ as a territorially and economically large one, then it will have achieved that aim by colonisation of people and territory which at the least were reluctant and probably needed a degree of violent enforcement – not exactly compatible with kindness. I suggest that you recalibrate your definitions of ‘great’ and ‘civilisation’.
The phrase doesn’t work. It can’t. Yet we have all succumbed to acting like it does to preserve our social status, to retain jobs, friends, memberships, community standing and to give the appearance of tolerance and kindness. But we are reticent, unconvinced and afraid to cause offence all at once, which leads to confusing polls.
I am no historian, but off the top I cannot think of any great civilization whose main guiding principle was kindness. It’s subjective hogwash and lacks any substance whatsoever to animate and galvanize a population towards greatness. Under what spell have we been cast that this bullshit is allowed to stand?
As I have just written elsewhere on this site, many people conflate transgender with transsexual. I actually had to explain to a woman, younger than myself, that a trans-woman is, in most (nearly all?) cases an intact male. She was somewhat disbelieving, and asked me why then do the newspapers refer to trans-women as “she” if they are still men – who can answer this,? Other than thinking that it might be malign intent.
I lead a very sheltered life, and I know very few members of the LGBGTWTF community – at least I have many acquaintances and a few friends who might be, but they have the good manners and good taste not to bang on about it all the time.
However, it has amused me for some time that several of my friends/acquaintances who are avowedly of the ‘L’ persuasion are generally inclined to the ‘trans women are women’ viewpoint until they come face to face (well, body to body) in a sauna/shower/changing room with an undoctored male. Quelle surprise!
The reason is a combination of an ideology with an appeal to those with an authoritarian bent with the desire to break a society. Most of us were ok with gay people having equality in the law, but now it’s trans. Who is next?
indeed. Bestiality?
Nonces.
Nonces.
Equality under the law? Gays have always had that. Gay marriage is an example of switching from equality to equity.
It is not true that gays have always had equality under the law. You really should do a little historical checking before making such a statement. It is very obviously untrue in many countries where it remains an offence (Russia, for instance). Even in England, it was illegal until 1967.
Supporting gay marriage differs greatly from believing there are transwomen” because it does not require believing in something that has no physical reality. Marriage is an interpersonal agreement validated by some authority (the state or a religion). No “equity” is required.
You don’t understand the difference between equality and equity. Gay people have had the same equality under the law to marry people of the opposite sex as non-gay people. Being able to marry the person you want and need to make you happy, that’s equity.
You don’t understand the difference between equality and equity. Gay people have had the same equality under the law to marry people of the opposite sex as non-gay people. Being able to marry the person you want and need to make you happy, that’s equity.
That is untrue. There is no “equity” in gay marriage. I am not a fan of gay marriage (though I am happy to live in a country that allows it, and would not want to live somewhere to persecutes gays). But equity involves achieving the same outcomes (e.g. financial, educational). It has nothing to do with marriage one way or the other.
See above.
See above.
It is not true that gays have always had equality under the law. You really should do a little historical checking before making such a statement. It is very obviously untrue in many countries where it remains an offence (Russia, for instance). Even in England, it was illegal until 1967.
Supporting gay marriage differs greatly from believing there are transwomen” because it does not require believing in something that has no physical reality. Marriage is an interpersonal agreement validated by some authority (the state or a religion). No “equity” is required.
That is untrue. There is no “equity” in gay marriage. I am not a fan of gay marriage (though I am happy to live in a country that allows it, and would not want to live somewhere to persecutes gays). But equity involves achieving the same outcomes (e.g. financial, educational). It has nothing to do with marriage one way or the other.
Pedophelia.
I fear, certainly for what’s left of Western Civilisation, that you are right although a case of beastiality has recently been through the English courts.. I don’t think the “Labour” Party will accept another attempt by the PIE to hav ‘affiliate’ status.
I’m afraid “trans” is part of Queer theory, as is kiddy fiddling and incest. According to Queer theorists (to be found in a university near you) all boundaries have to be broken down.
If you’d like to drive yourself mad, spend some time reading James Lindsay. He knows the topic inside out. It is already in our education system.
I’m afraid “trans” is part of Queer theory, as is kiddy fiddling and incest. According to Queer theorists (to be found in a university near you) all boundaries have to be broken down.
If you’d like to drive yourself mad, spend some time reading James Lindsay. He knows the topic inside out. It is already in our education system.
I fear, certainly for what’s left of Western Civilisation, that you are right although a case of beastiality has recently been through the English courts.. I don’t think the “Labour” Party will accept another attempt by the PIE to hav ‘affiliate’ status.
indeed. Bestiality?
Equality under the law? Gays have always had that. Gay marriage is an example of switching from equality to equity.
Pedophelia.
Isn’t this an expression of the bait-and-switch logic used by trans activists now? Like you, I used to assume that “transsexual” was a person who underwent a physical transformation in order to live a live as the opposite sex to the one they were were born as, whereas “transgender”, when I first heard the word, I assumed was pretty much synonymous with “cross-dressing”.
As Kathleen mentions in the article, I think the conflation of the terms “sex” and “gender” to mean pretty much the same thing in this context represents a deliberate, and in some cases malicious, muddying of the waters by individuals in denial that there are actual differences between men and women.
I lead a very sheltered life, and I know very few members of the LGBGTWTF community – at least I have many acquaintances and a few friends who might be, but they have the good manners and good taste not to bang on about it all the time.
However, it has amused me for some time that several of my friends/acquaintances who are avowedly of the ‘L’ persuasion are generally inclined to the ‘trans women are women’ viewpoint until they come face to face (well, body to body) in a sauna/shower/changing room with an undoctored male. Quelle surprise!
The reason is a combination of an ideology with an appeal to those with an authoritarian bent with the desire to break a society. Most of us were ok with gay people having equality in the law, but now it’s trans. Who is next?
Isn’t this an expression of the bait-and-switch logic used by trans activists now? Like you, I used to assume that “transsexual” was a person who underwent a physical transformation in order to live a live as the opposite sex to the one they were were born as, whereas “transgender”, when I first heard the word, I assumed was pretty much synonymous with “cross-dressing”.
As Kathleen mentions in the article, I think the conflation of the terms “sex” and “gender” to mean pretty much the same thing in this context represents a deliberate, and in some cases malicious, muddying of the waters by individuals in denial that there are actual differences between men and women.
As I have just written elsewhere on this site, many people conflate transgender with transsexual. I actually had to explain to a woman, younger than myself, that a trans-woman is, in most (nearly all?) cases an intact male. She was somewhat disbelieving, and asked me why then do the newspapers refer to trans-women as “she” if they are still men – who can answer this,? Other than thinking that it might be malign intent.
As far as I can discern, LBG has nothing in common with T
Further, some say that L and G and B don’t have that much in common with each other altogether. (Douglas Murray is on YouTube somewhere making a wry observation on this point.)
The T is the cuckoo’s egg in a nest that LGB people spent decades building.
They carried each other until the necessary societal norms were overturned.
That’s nonsense. Transgenderism is piggybacking on gay rights, a movement that existed for decades before transgenderism was even a thing.
The two have absolutely nothing in common. One is a movement that fought for consenting adults to be free to have same sex relationships, while the other is a movement dedicated to restructuring the whole of society around a faith in the existence of ‘the gendered spirit’.
But more than simply having nothing in common, they are deeply and fundamentally incompatible. How can same sex relationships even exist when, for example, a male can be a lesbian, a female can be a heterosexual man, and biological sex itself is an inherently ‘transphobic’ concept?
Gender identity ideology should NEVER have been shoehorned in to the fight for gay rights. That it was is less a reflection of any alignment of aims, and more a sad reflection on Stonewall, who played such a key role in the gay rights movement, throwing rationalism out of the window in its increasingly desperate struggle to find a new income stream.
Have some sympathy for Stonewall, it was fighting for its existence. When full rights under the law was achieved for LGB people where did that leave it? It could continue campaigning to force the hold-outs to love all LGB people, but changing hearts and minds is not something most LGB people particularly care about, they just want to get on with their lives (some still push for religious marriage, but I don’t think most care that much, it’s just a position to take). However, when a shiny,new cause came into its sights, Stonewall couldn’t help itself; this is something to keep it going a little longer, and it looks like it can be spun out for years. If trans peopel got everything they wanted, Stonewall would be scanning the horizon for the next thing; it needs to continue the good fight for its own existence.
An organisation that only exists in order to maintain its own existence is the very definition of self-serving. Stonewall has a glorious past but an increasingly ignominious present. Time to go, Stonewall. And please – take Mermaids with you.
An organisation that only exists in order to maintain its own existence is the very definition of self-serving. Stonewall has a glorious past but an increasingly ignominious present. Time to go, Stonewall. And please – take Mermaids with you.
Have some sympathy for Stonewall, it was fighting for its existence. When full rights under the law was achieved for LGB people where did that leave it? It could continue campaigning to force the hold-outs to love all LGB people, but changing hearts and minds is not something most LGB people particularly care about, they just want to get on with their lives (some still push for religious marriage, but I don’t think most care that much, it’s just a position to take). However, when a shiny,new cause came into its sights, Stonewall couldn’t help itself; this is something to keep it going a little longer, and it looks like it can be spun out for years. If trans peopel got everything they wanted, Stonewall would be scanning the horizon for the next thing; it needs to continue the good fight for its own existence.
That’s nonsense. Transgenderism is piggybacking on gay rights, a movement that existed for decades before transgenderism was even a thing.
The two have absolutely nothing in common. One is a movement that fought for consenting adults to be free to have same sex relationships, while the other is a movement dedicated to restructuring the whole of society around a faith in the existence of ‘the gendered spirit’.
But more than simply having nothing in common, they are deeply and fundamentally incompatible. How can same sex relationships even exist when, for example, a male can be a lesbian, a female can be a heterosexual man, and biological sex itself is an inherently ‘transphobic’ concept?
Gender identity ideology should NEVER have been shoehorned in to the fight for gay rights. That it was is less a reflection of any alignment of aims, and more a sad reflection on Stonewall, who played such a key role in the gay rights movement, throwing rationalism out of the window in its increasingly desperate struggle to find a new income stream.
This is why the LGB (no T) Alliance was formed in 2019. After Stonewall’s CEO proclaimed that lesbians who don’t have to have intimate relations with transwomen (i.e. men) are ‘transphobic bigots’.
Further, some say that L and G and B don’t have that much in common with each other altogether. (Douglas Murray is on YouTube somewhere making a wry observation on this point.)
The T is the cuckoo’s egg in a nest that LGB people spent decades building.
They carried each other until the necessary societal norms were overturned.
This is why the LGB (no T) Alliance was formed in 2019. After Stonewall’s CEO proclaimed that lesbians who don’t have to have intimate relations with transwomen (i.e. men) are ‘transphobic bigots’.
As far as I can discern, LBG has nothing in common with T
“For instance, someone who says she believes that the sky is falling in, but who doesn’t duck or otherwise mention it in other relevant contexts, is perhaps not being entirely reliable.”
For instance someone who uses the term “climate emergency” but still has a car, owns a mobile phone and travels by air, is perhaps not being entirely reliable
“For instance, someone who says she believes that the sky is falling in, but who doesn’t duck or otherwise mention it in other relevant contexts, is perhaps not being entirely reliable.”
For instance someone who uses the term “climate emergency” but still has a car, owns a mobile phone and travels by air, is perhaps not being entirely reliable
Fifteen years ago this whole subject would have been incomprehensible and the news media would have disregarded it. Now its the latest battle zone in the assault on objective reality and clarity of thinking being carries out by the extreme radical left.
I wonder what fresh madness will be thrust in our faces in two or three years’ time?
I sincerely wish it would go back to being a subject the media disregarded. I wish UnHerd didn’t feel the need to publish articles like this (which I broadly agree with by the way).
I’m board with the topic & I doubt there’s much more light to be shone on the subject – haven’t we all made up our minds already?
You’re missing the point. Under a Labour government, single sex spaces would be subject to immediate erosion. My two daughters would, without doubt, be at risk of having to share their female changing rooms with intact males. That is where this whole farce is heading.
Yes we do need to force discussion of this. If Srarmer gets his way England will be subjected to this nonsense. I was very happy when Sunak made his statement.
But it’s already subject to it. Someone I know in education in the UK has become a consultant to schools(by default) regarding what to do about bathrooms in day schools and boarding schools. Then recently she was consulted by the management of cruise ships. She’s no authority (who is) but institutions and businesses have no where to turn to navigate the horror. The UK because of it’s more tolerant culture has it worse than the US.
But it’s already subject to it. Someone I know in education in the UK has become a consultant to schools(by default) regarding what to do about bathrooms in day schools and boarding schools. Then recently she was consulted by the management of cruise ships. She’s no authority (who is) but institutions and businesses have no where to turn to navigate the horror. The UK because of it’s more tolerant culture has it worse than the US.
There needs to be a third bathroom but who’s would monitor it.
Yes we do need to force discussion of this. If Srarmer gets his way England will be subjected to this nonsense. I was very happy when Sunak made his statement.
There needs to be a third bathroom but who’s would monitor it.
unfortunately, gender activist policies are in process of erasing the rights of women, kids, gays, parents and others. these rights are being taken away. the only way to counter this is for the public to gain awareness of the fraud and grift thats occuring. people who choose to ID as another gender already have every right anyone else does. men who ID as women are perfectly safe in mens spaces. the data proves that. yet goverments world wide are allowing men into womens spaces placing women at risk. these goverments are also harming kids. kids have a right to go through puberty without being defrauded by phony info tricking them into becoming life long medical patients. does being a life long lab rat sound fun? its not. yet its being sold that it is. activist online polls and low quality studys are being used to erase the rights of parents to protect kids. they are being used to harm kids most of whom will grow up to be gay and instead are permanently sterilized. this is the most homophobic thing off all time. heres an article about a whisleblower who reports how we have failed these kids
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9PqIVuhof82BJaqTlopHxRTJO8uVP08JbZK_rc02d4KjQL_bhbzqZQA0z43WDtTGTGCyih
“Most of whom will grow up to be gay”!! Why?
“Most of whom will grow up to be gay”!! Why?
Labour are fully on board with this madness. Expect nothing but full throttle madness from them.
Isn’t that a generalization.
Isn’t that a generalization.
You’re missing the point. Under a Labour government, single sex spaces would be subject to immediate erosion. My two daughters would, without doubt, be at risk of having to share their female changing rooms with intact males. That is where this whole farce is heading.
unfortunately, gender activist policies are in process of erasing the rights of women, kids, gays, parents and others. these rights are being taken away. the only way to counter this is for the public to gain awareness of the fraud and grift thats occuring. people who choose to ID as another gender already have every right anyone else does. men who ID as women are perfectly safe in mens spaces. the data proves that. yet goverments world wide are allowing men into womens spaces placing women at risk. these goverments are also harming kids. kids have a right to go through puberty without being defrauded by phony info tricking them into becoming life long medical patients. does being a life long lab rat sound fun? its not. yet its being sold that it is. activist online polls and low quality studys are being used to erase the rights of parents to protect kids. they are being used to harm kids most of whom will grow up to be gay and instead are permanently sterilized. this is the most homophobic thing off all time. heres an article about a whisleblower who reports how we have failed these kids
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9PqIVuhof82BJaqTlopHxRTJO8uVP08JbZK_rc02d4KjQL_bhbzqZQA0z43WDtTGTGCyih
Labour are fully on board with this madness. Expect nothing but full throttle madness from them.
While it may be being championed by those you refer to as the ‘extreme radical left’, I don’t think that’s an intrinsic aspect of the argument. Indeed, the Communist Party, perhaps the standard bearers of ‘the extreme radical left’, are notable in being perhaps the only left-of-centre party to refuse to sign up to gender identity dogma.
In the bad old days of sex role stereotypes, if you were a girl, society told you that you should play with dolls. Then, for a brief, enlightened moment delivered by feminism, we realised that if you were a girl, you should play with whatever made you happy. But now, if you play with dolls, post- gender identity society tells you you’re probably a girl, regardless of your sex. It’s as reactionary as it ever was.
My point is that it’s not so much on a left-right spectrum as on a rationalism-faith spectrum.
I sincerely wish it would go back to being a subject the media disregarded. I wish UnHerd didn’t feel the need to publish articles like this (which I broadly agree with by the way).
I’m board with the topic & I doubt there’s much more light to be shone on the subject – haven’t we all made up our minds already?
While it may be being championed by those you refer to as the ‘extreme radical left’, I don’t think that’s an intrinsic aspect of the argument. Indeed, the Communist Party, perhaps the standard bearers of ‘the extreme radical left’, are notable in being perhaps the only left-of-centre party to refuse to sign up to gender identity dogma.
In the bad old days of sex role stereotypes, if you were a girl, society told you that you should play with dolls. Then, for a brief, enlightened moment delivered by feminism, we realised that if you were a girl, you should play with whatever made you happy. But now, if you play with dolls, post- gender identity society tells you you’re probably a girl, regardless of your sex. It’s as reactionary as it ever was.
My point is that it’s not so much on a left-right spectrum as on a rationalism-faith spectrum.
Fifteen years ago this whole subject would have been incomprehensible and the news media would have disregarded it. Now its the latest battle zone in the assault on objective reality and clarity of thinking being carries out by the extreme radical left.
I wonder what fresh madness will be thrust in our faces in two or three years’ time?
“They have relentlessly insisted that the question “are trans women, women?” is a test of individual character … It’s as if the public has been sold a subliminal version of the Peter Pan story: say you believe that fairies exist, and you can save Tinkerbell from dying.
I had to laugh when I read this, It’s a far more astute and truthful summary of the trans-lobby’s point of view than anything they have uttered themselves. No wonder that those of my friends who have heard of Kathleen Stock see her as some kind of folk hero.
“They have relentlessly insisted that the question “are trans women, women?” is a test of individual character … It’s as if the public has been sold a subliminal version of the Peter Pan story: say you believe that fairies exist, and you can save Tinkerbell from dying.
I had to laugh when I read this, It’s a far more astute and truthful summary of the trans-lobby’s point of view than anything they have uttered themselves. No wonder that those of my friends who have heard of Kathleen Stock see her as some kind of folk hero.
I am still half way through, but I want to make a point. You say,
“To “identify” here mainly refers to men saying that they feel like women, and women saying that they feel like men”
This is what you understand the question to mean. When I read it I wasn’t sure at all, so I don’t whether I would have been in the yes/no/don’t know camp. Personally I started with a “yes”, but I wasn’t sure. I just interpreted the first question in light of the others.
The wording of the questions is too open. What does “transgender” mean? What does “identify” mean? What is a “transgender woman”, a man or a woman?
If we don’t agree on the meaning of the words first how can we give a sensible answer or express accurately our viewpoint?
As ever, excellent article.
You make same if my points later in the article, but I still wander why the pollsters phrased the questions the way they did.
Maybe further questions are needed to ascertain what the public understand by the words “identify”, “transwoman”, “man”, “woman”.
An excellent point. What the pollsters should have been collecting were reactions to the implications. For instance, do you think a male who is feeling girly should gain access to women-only areas? Should a man who has been competing in a sport be able to compete as a women?
Exactly. What does it all mean in the real world of sports, toilets, the military, hospitals………..and so on.
Exactly. What does it all mean in the real world of sports, toilets, the military, hospitals………..and so on.
An excellent point. What the pollsters should have been collecting were reactions to the implications. For instance, do you think a male who is feeling girly should gain access to women-only areas? Should a man who has been competing in a sport be able to compete as a women?
People are asked to agree or disagree with an assertion:
“People should be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one they had recorded at birth” Agree or disagree?
Which is not the same, in poll terms, as ‘asking a question’.
But what does “identify” mean?
I assume “present yourself as and expect to be treated as” gender of choice.
I can live with “present yourself”, but “expect to be treated” is vastly different and wide reaching. “Expect to be treated” is akin to TWAW. This is why I say the term is not clear, hence the question is not clear.
I can live with “present yourself”, but “expect to be treated” is vastly different and wide reaching. “Expect to be treated” is akin to TWAW. This is why I say the term is not clear, hence the question is not clear.
This is, of course, the thorny question. From a philosophical point of view, I don’t believe in ” identity”. I think we tell ourselves stories about who we are, and these can have quite a strong fantasy element. Other people however, can see us for who/what we are. I don’t particularly like being compelled to join other peoples fantasies.
What does “mean” mean !
I assume “present yourself as and expect to be treated as” gender of choice.
This is, of course, the thorny question. From a philosophical point of view, I don’t believe in ” identity”. I think we tell ourselves stories about who we are, and these can have quite a strong fantasy element. Other people however, can see us for who/what we are. I don’t particularly like being compelled to join other peoples fantasies.
What does “mean” mean !
Gender is not recorded at birth. Sex is.
But what does “identify” mean?
Gender is not recorded at birth. Sex is.
A transgender man is a ‘neuter’. And a transgender woman is a ‘neuter’. Maybe society just needs to accept a third ‘space’ for expression/identity and accommodate them in the ‘changing rooms’ etc of their original gender/sex/chromasomes
There is no such thing as a ‘gender’ in respect of personal identity, in that it is a self-applied label that cannot be externally tested. It is no more real than if I were to say I am the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell. I might even genuinely believe it to be true, but it cannot be demonstrated one way or the other.
Meanwhile, both sex and chromosomes are immutable.
And that ought to just about wrap it up for gender identity ideology.
Gender is a social construct. Sex is biology.
Gender is a social construct. Sex is biology.
They can have their own spaces. They just can’t take over spaces belonging to others. They specifically target biological women, because they see them as more vulnerable to attack than men–also jealousy.
I wonder where misogyny fits into the transwoman thing. How many men were misogynists before they became “women”? Did they hate what they desired because they desired it?
I wonder where misogyny fits into the transwoman thing. How many men were misogynists before they became “women”? Did they hate what they desired because they desired it?
Exactly, that’s what I’ve been saying, a third gender/sex. An “other”.
There is no such thing as a ‘gender’ in respect of personal identity, in that it is a self-applied label that cannot be externally tested. It is no more real than if I were to say I am the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell. I might even genuinely believe it to be true, but it cannot be demonstrated one way or the other.
Meanwhile, both sex and chromosomes are immutable.
And that ought to just about wrap it up for gender identity ideology.
They can have their own spaces. They just can’t take over spaces belonging to others. They specifically target biological women, because they see them as more vulnerable to attack than men–also jealousy.
Exactly, that’s what I’ve been saying, a third gender/sex. An “other”.
I gave up on that one when it said I read assigned a gender at birth. No one is assigned a gender at birth; one is assigned a sex at birth.
Sex is inherent from conception and is observed and registered at birth.
’Gender’ is nonsense.
Sex is determined at fertilisation. Which happens 5 days BEFORE the developing embryo implants into the uterus which is when the woman can be said to have “conceived “, an archaic word from the 1400s meaning simply “to get pregnant “.
I’m not sure that’s true about sex being determined at fertilization, I thought it came later.I’ll have to google it.
I’m not sure that’s true about sex being determined at fertilization, I thought it came later.I’ll have to google it.
Sex is determined at fertilisation. Which happens 5 days BEFORE the developing embryo implants into the uterus which is when the woman can be said to have “conceived “, an archaic word from the 1400s meaning simply “to get pregnant “.
Removed cos I said wot Caroline said
Sex is observed and recorded at birth. Often observed less than halfway through a pregnancy. “Assigned” was taken from the words used when babies were born with truly ambiguous genitalia caused by a variety of DSDs. Only 150 born last year in all the U.K. Another shameful use of this tiny population to boost the bizarre beliefs of transideology.
Birth certificates could state “biological sex” at birth rather than gender since these are determined as 2 different things. Then there would be no need or talk of changing one’s birth certificate. You’re free to identify as any fever you want. But the birth sex should be the guidepost for women’s spaces, sports and prison, etc.
Birth certificate do state biological sex. They never say anything about gender roles.
Exactly. So if a man at a job earning more than a woman becomes a transwoman, does their pay go down?
Exactly. So if a man at a job earning more than a woman becomes a transwoman, does their pay go down?
Birth certificate do state biological sex. They never say anything about gender roles.
Birth certificates could state “biological sex” at birth rather than gender since these are determined as 2 different things. Then there would be no need or talk of changing one’s birth certificate. You’re free to identify as any fever you want. But the birth sex should be the guidepost for women’s spaces, sports and prison, etc.
Or to put it even more plainly, one’s sex at birth is observed (no medical training needed for this) and recorded.
[Note: just spotted someone else had made the same point.]
If by “assigned a sex at birth” you mean that the doctor/midwife notices the genitalia of the new-born baby and says “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl” then I agree. However, what is usually meant by this phrase is that the baby is arbitrarily assigned to one of two sexes (or genders, as such people like to call them) by those who have no idea what the true “gender” of the baby’s soul might be. Therefore, I advise against using the phrase at all, and just say that the baby’s sex is observed at birth.
What is a soul?
What is a soul?
Sex is inherent from conception and is observed and registered at birth.
’Gender’ is nonsense.
Removed cos I said wot Caroline said
Sex is observed and recorded at birth. Often observed less than halfway through a pregnancy. “Assigned” was taken from the words used when babies were born with truly ambiguous genitalia caused by a variety of DSDs. Only 150 born last year in all the U.K. Another shameful use of this tiny population to boost the bizarre beliefs of transideology.
Or to put it even more plainly, one’s sex at birth is observed (no medical training needed for this) and recorded.
[Note: just spotted someone else had made the same point.]
If by “assigned a sex at birth” you mean that the doctor/midwife notices the genitalia of the new-born baby and says “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl” then I agree. However, what is usually meant by this phrase is that the baby is arbitrarily assigned to one of two sexes (or genders, as such people like to call them) by those who have no idea what the true “gender” of the baby’s soul might be. Therefore, I advise against using the phrase at all, and just say that the baby’s sex is observed at birth.
As ever, excellent article.
You make same if my points later in the article, but I still wander why the pollsters phrased the questions the way they did.
Maybe further questions are needed to ascertain what the public understand by the words “identify”, “transwoman”, “man”, “woman”.
People are asked to agree or disagree with an assertion:
“People should be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one they had recorded at birth” Agree or disagree?
Which is not the same, in poll terms, as ‘asking a question’.
A transgender man is a ‘neuter’. And a transgender woman is a ‘neuter’. Maybe society just needs to accept a third ‘space’ for expression/identity and accommodate them in the ‘changing rooms’ etc of their original gender/sex/chromasomes
I gave up on that one when it said I read assigned a gender at birth. No one is assigned a gender at birth; one is assigned a sex at birth.
I am still half way through, but I want to make a point. You say,
“To “identify” here mainly refers to men saying that they feel like women, and women saying that they feel like men”
This is what you understand the question to mean. When I read it I wasn’t sure at all, so I don’t whether I would have been in the yes/no/don’t know camp. Personally I started with a “yes”, but I wasn’t sure. I just interpreted the first question in light of the others.
The wording of the questions is too open. What does “transgender” mean? What does “identify” mean? What is a “transgender woman”, a man or a woman?
If we don’t agree on the meaning of the words first how can we give a sensible answer or express accurately our viewpoint?
Perhaps, as previously mentioned in other articles about the Unherd survey, the survey was poorly designed? It’s a skill that has to be learned.
Or perhaps the survey was designed to generate topics for debate rather than clarify public opinions?
This is one route that Unherd seems to be going down, something concocted perhaps at one of those soirees they’ve put on, with full London-centric public display.
The trouble is, as your rightly say, it’s a skill that has to be learned and Unherd should publish their full methodology so it can be scrutinised by those with the relevant skills. The other problem is that these surveys (like you, i wouldn’t call them polls, as such) are then picked up by the MSM and treated as some kind of major change in public opinion when transience – another awkward trans issue – is disregarded.
Very likely. Muddled results like this suggest that’s a possibility.
This is one route that Unherd seems to be going down, something concocted perhaps at one of those soirees they’ve put on, with full London-centric public display.
The trouble is, as your rightly say, it’s a skill that has to be learned and Unherd should publish their full methodology so it can be scrutinised by those with the relevant skills. The other problem is that these surveys (like you, i wouldn’t call them polls, as such) are then picked up by the MSM and treated as some kind of major change in public opinion when transience – another awkward trans issue – is disregarded.
Very likely. Muddled results like this suggest that’s a possibility.
Perhaps, as previously mentioned in other articles about the Unherd survey, the survey was poorly designed? It’s a skill that has to be learned.
Or perhaps the survey was designed to generate topics for debate rather than clarify public opinions?
One other aspect of this whole irrational debacle is that men could lose their urinals to the insistence on having ‘gender neutral’ public toilets – and will have to join the long queues that have forever bedevilled women at conferences, in pubs and at concerts! As a man I will not give up my urinals for anyone – and especially not on the altar of a fiction!
Keep your urinals. I want a separate ladies room where I don’t have to see you urinate.
Whoa!! A separate “ladies” room? Are you trans or do you mean separate toilet?
Whoa!! A separate “ladies” room? Are you trans or do you mean separate toilet?
Well you may have to. I’ve always thought there was something wierd about urinals. To be flashing your genitals and urinating is such an intimate thing to be doing with strangers. That urinals are places where gay men solicite other men would seem to suport that thought.
Keep your urinals. I want a separate ladies room where I don’t have to see you urinate.
Well you may have to. I’ve always thought there was something wierd about urinals. To be flashing your genitals and urinating is such an intimate thing to be doing with strangers. That urinals are places where gay men solicite other men would seem to suport that thought.
One other aspect of this whole irrational debacle is that men could lose their urinals to the insistence on having ‘gender neutral’ public toilets – and will have to join the long queues that have forever bedevilled women at conferences, in pubs and at concerts! As a man I will not give up my urinals for anyone – and especially not on the altar of a fiction!
I could identify as being older than I am. Of pensionable age. Or that I am in fact two people. I could use the pronoun “we”. But I would not expect the government to pay me my old age state pension before it is due. Twice.
Just because someone “identifies” as something he or she is not does not mean that others need to buy into it, and absolutely not that the law should be changed to impose someone else’s “identity” on everyone else.
A woman is an adult female human. A man is an adult male human. Everything else is delusion.
An adult human female with a uterus. Do trans women demonstrate at pro-choice rallies?
An adult human female with a uterus. Do trans women demonstrate at pro-choice rallies?
I could identify as being older than I am. Of pensionable age. Or that I am in fact two people. I could use the pronoun “we”. But I would not expect the government to pay me my old age state pension before it is due. Twice.
Just because someone “identifies” as something he or she is not does not mean that others need to buy into it, and absolutely not that the law should be changed to impose someone else’s “identity” on everyone else.
A woman is an adult female human. A man is an adult male human. Everything else is delusion.
“Collaborating together over a decade, these organisations have poured resources — donated to them by well-meaning foundations…”
Not “well-meaning”. Never “well-meaning”.
Not well-meaning, self-serving.
Not well-meaning, self-serving.
“Collaborating together over a decade, these organisations have poured resources — donated to them by well-meaning foundations…”
Not “well-meaning”. Never “well-meaning”.
One senses that for most folks this has been a pretty peripheral issue which only those with less else to worry about have spent much time pondering.
But once a light is shone some good common sense emerges from the British public – resulting for example in the 180 turn Sturgeon has had to take on prison placement.
We’re a kind and compassionate people – well at least most are when actually dealing direct with fellow humans rather than in the abstract on line etc – but when pushed we will coalesce on what is right and sensible.
One senses that for most folks this has been a pretty peripheral issue which only those with less else to worry about have spent much time pondering.
But once a light is shone some good common sense emerges from the British public – resulting for example in the 180 turn Sturgeon has had to take on prison placement.
We’re a kind and compassionate people – well at least most are when actually dealing direct with fellow humans rather than in the abstract on line etc – but when pushed we will coalesce on what is right and sensible.
What concerns me in the US is the trend of state legislators passing laws that give rights to people based on how they FEEL. No court of law, a judge and Jury can ascertain how a person feels.
On the political right are the Stand Your Ground laws. These allow a person who feels threatened to shoot with impunity. I do not know what the burden of proof is on the shooter in such cases.
On the political left it is the laws related to gender dysphoria.
To me this is a dangerous trend.
In Florida, the SYG statute requires the shooter who winds up killing an invader and successfully invoking the law as a defense to:
1) be a lawful occupant of a residence, dwelling, or vehicle
2) have reason to believe imminent death or serious bodily harm would befall him/her at the hands of an unlawful invader
3) have witnessed the invader breaking in or seeing him already inside, or kidnapping a lawful occupant of the residence, dwelling, or vehicle, to meet the “imminent threat” legal standard.
I’d be mildly surprised if any other states’ versions are substantially less restrictive than Florida’s.
Just goes to show the crux of the divide with extremists on both sides.
In Florida, the SYG statute requires the shooter who winds up killing an invader and successfully invoking the law as a defense to:
1) be a lawful occupant of a residence, dwelling, or vehicle
2) have reason to believe imminent death or serious bodily harm would befall him/her at the hands of an unlawful invader
3) have witnessed the invader breaking in or seeing him already inside, or kidnapping a lawful occupant of the residence, dwelling, or vehicle, to meet the “imminent threat” legal standard.
I’d be mildly surprised if any other states’ versions are substantially less restrictive than Florida’s.
Just goes to show the crux of the divide with extremists on both sides.
What concerns me in the US is the trend of state legislators passing laws that give rights to people based on how they FEEL. No court of law, a judge and Jury can ascertain how a person feels.
On the political right are the Stand Your Ground laws. These allow a person who feels threatened to shoot with impunity. I do not know what the burden of proof is on the shooter in such cases.
On the political left it is the laws related to gender dysphoria.
To me this is a dangerous trend.
Another incisive analysis by Dr Stock, with the razor sharp wit and good sense that most of us crave.
Another incisive analysis by Dr Stock, with the razor sharp wit and good sense that most of us crave.
33% apparently agree that transwomen are women. How many of those also agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation? Probably few, if any. Yet the latter proposition is probably slightly more believable, although both rely on similar arguments (emphasising inner essence rather than the ‘accidents’ of outward form). Perhaps the RC Church needs to recruit some proselytisers from Stonewall etc
A lot of people are probably afraid to disagree and lose their jobs and lives.
My imagination is spinning now I’m on a “what if track”. Do trans women go to a gynacologist or a urologst?
My imagination is spinning now I’m on a “what if track”. Do trans women go to a gynacologist or a urologst?
A lot of people are probably afraid to disagree and lose their jobs and lives.
33% apparently agree that transwomen are women. How many of those also agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation? Probably few, if any. Yet the latter proposition is probably slightly more believable, although both rely on similar arguments (emphasising inner essence rather than the ‘accidents’ of outward form). Perhaps the RC Church needs to recruit some proselytisers from Stonewall etc
There is a transwoman in a adjacent friendship group of mine – of some 25 years (the length of the friendships). She is absolutely accepted as a person, an equal etc, her decision, her dress, her use of toilets, ‘F’ on her passport etc. At the same time, I’ve asked several of the friends, male and female, discretely, ‘do you see her in the the same way as Mary/Louise etc (i.e. natal women they know)’ – the answer was more or less always the same. I suspect everyone reasding this already knows that answer.
There is a transwoman in a adjacent friendship group of mine – of some 25 years (the length of the friendships). She is absolutely accepted as a person, an equal etc, her decision, her dress, her use of toilets, ‘F’ on her passport etc. At the same time, I’ve asked several of the friends, male and female, discretely, ‘do you see her in the the same way as Mary/Louise etc (i.e. natal women they know)’ – the answer was more or less always the same. I suspect everyone reasding this already knows that answer.
Brilliant analysis, Kathleen, thank you. Such clarity of thought.
I still don’t understand why women who want to be seen as men are not called transwomen and men who want to be thought of as women are not called transmen. Rather than the other way round. That would seem mildly more accurate.
It is a linguistic abomination. They seem to be traducing all our language to make it mean what they want it to mean and to mess with people’s (especially children’s) heads.
Goodness knows what comes next – I suppose we all have our perfectly justified fears..
Totally agree, it should be the other way round. I find myself having to pause and think about what it means. Very confusing.
Totally agree, it should be the other way round. I find myself having to pause and think about what it means. Very confusing.
Brilliant analysis, Kathleen, thank you. Such clarity of thought.
I still don’t understand why women who want to be seen as men are not called transwomen and men who want to be thought of as women are not called transmen. Rather than the other way round. That would seem mildly more accurate.
It is a linguistic abomination. They seem to be traducing all our language to make it mean what they want it to mean and to mess with people’s (especially children’s) heads.
Goodness knows what comes next – I suppose we all have our perfectly justified fears..
Why are issues about men wanting to pretend to be the opposite sex mixed up with issues about “compassion” and “kindness”?
Why are WOMEN expected to GIVE compassion (i.e. surrender our identities) snd “kindness” (i.e. lie about what we see and think), but men who want to claim our identity are not advised to have compassion for US?
Germane to this issue, however, is an Arabic saying, “A friend is the one who makes you cry.” The meaning is, a friend is the one who tells you the truth about yourself, and makes you see the mistakes you are making.
Women do not owe kindness and compassion to anybody. But the kindest thing we can do is to tell men that they can never be women. They can dress as they please and act as they are compelled by their inner voices to act, but no amount of drugs or surgery can ever alter the body they were born into. Like so many other things in this life, they have to GROW UP and get used to it. I can never be a Native American no matter how much I admire Natives; a child born in the slums of Calcultta has NO CHANCE of becoming President of the United States. There are certain realities that people have to face.
It’s called “the human condition.”
Transwomen can’t give birth so really what more needs to be said. Transmen don’t seem to be so problematic because they were originally women. What more needs to be said.
Transwomen can’t give birth so really what more needs to be said. Transmen don’t seem to be so problematic because they were originally women. What more needs to be said.
Why are issues about men wanting to pretend to be the opposite sex mixed up with issues about “compassion” and “kindness”?
Why are WOMEN expected to GIVE compassion (i.e. surrender our identities) snd “kindness” (i.e. lie about what we see and think), but men who want to claim our identity are not advised to have compassion for US?
Germane to this issue, however, is an Arabic saying, “A friend is the one who makes you cry.” The meaning is, a friend is the one who tells you the truth about yourself, and makes you see the mistakes you are making.
Women do not owe kindness and compassion to anybody. But the kindest thing we can do is to tell men that they can never be women. They can dress as they please and act as they are compelled by their inner voices to act, but no amount of drugs or surgery can ever alter the body they were born into. Like so many other things in this life, they have to GROW UP and get used to it. I can never be a Native American no matter how much I admire Natives; a child born in the slums of Calcultta has NO CHANCE of becoming President of the United States. There are certain realities that people have to face.
It’s called “the human condition.”
It really just adds up to people being tolerant of those who want to identify with the opposite gender but unwilling to let them impose that fantasy on the rest of ordinary life. “Dress how you want, but there’s a line you can’t cross.”
EXACTLY!!!
EXACTLY!!!
It really just adds up to people being tolerant of those who want to identify with the opposite gender but unwilling to let them impose that fantasy on the rest of ordinary life. “Dress how you want, but there’s a line you can’t cross.”
I am starting to think that the general public has finally had enough of woke nonsense and is pushing back.
The Loony Left is losing its power to brow beat and humiliate and even intimidate.
In my opinion it was the following that got out of control that did it…
BLM being not much more than a scam by the founders and an excuse for black thieves to loot high end stores for Gucci bags in the name of reparations.
Cancel culture. It just turned into a daily witch hunt for microaggressions on which to base taking someones employment. the fact that those screaming loudest could never gracefully accept an apology did not help their cause.
Trans activists and their supporters insulting those of us that who otherwise would have had sympathy for their plight to deny our own lying eyes and common sense and accept that 6’4″ bilogical male swimmers are actually women and should be allowed to share a locker room with out daughters then trounce them in sport. Or…attempting to shame us and embaress us for thinking the obvious, that a biological man convicted of sex crimes should not be in a woman’s prison. OR….attempting to take our children away because we will not use their chosen pronouns or agree to double mastectomies for our 13 yr old daughters.
In short….I think the Wokie’s of the world are choking on their own bile.
Still a lot of work to do to squeeze this poison from out culture, but at least we now recognize the problems.
The “loony left” is unfortunately matched by a “loony right” that also wants to control other people’s lives.
I’m liking you comments, Robin, you must be a biological woman!!
I’m liking you comments, Robin, you must be a biological woman!!
The common denomiator here is MEN. The trans movement is driven by men wanting to be women and yet it’s men who are misogynists. Do men hate what they deire to be? Freud talked of women’s p***s envy, so are transwomen womb envious?
The “loony left” is unfortunately matched by a “loony right” that also wants to control other people’s lives.
The common denomiator here is MEN. The trans movement is driven by men wanting to be women and yet it’s men who are misogynists. Do men hate what they deire to be? Freud talked of women’s p***s envy, so are transwomen womb envious?
I am starting to think that the general public has finally had enough of woke nonsense and is pushing back.
The Loony Left is losing its power to brow beat and humiliate and even intimidate.
In my opinion it was the following that got out of control that did it…
BLM being not much more than a scam by the founders and an excuse for black thieves to loot high end stores for Gucci bags in the name of reparations.
Cancel culture. It just turned into a daily witch hunt for microaggressions on which to base taking someones employment. the fact that those screaming loudest could never gracefully accept an apology did not help their cause.
Trans activists and their supporters insulting those of us that who otherwise would have had sympathy for their plight to deny our own lying eyes and common sense and accept that 6’4″ bilogical male swimmers are actually women and should be allowed to share a locker room with out daughters then trounce them in sport. Or…attempting to shame us and embaress us for thinking the obvious, that a biological man convicted of sex crimes should not be in a woman’s prison. OR….attempting to take our children away because we will not use their chosen pronouns or agree to double mastectomies for our 13 yr old daughters.
In short….I think the Wokie’s of the world are choking on their own bile.
Still a lot of work to do to squeeze this poison from out culture, but at least we now recognize the problems.
Good points. And yes, I think the decade long guilt trip is indeed running out of steam. Or at least others are running out of patience with the whole thing.
If someone wants to identify as a different gender, I don’t care. I support their behavior, including dress, pronouns, actions, etc. If they want to consider themselves a “woman”, I say, “sure….go for it.” Because it doesn’t affect me one way or another.
But when they want society to start a fundamental shift towards accepting them in women’s sports, considering them “birth bearers” or whatever the current nonsense term is, or allowing them in women’s spaces….nope. Because you aren’t really a “woman.”
“Birth bearers” haven’t heard that one. Yes, tolerant of all the things you mention except the pronouns. It’s a b****r to be reading a story with the pronoun thing and not being able to understand what it’s all about. Having to stop and rethink very few seconds. I resent that.
“Birth bearers” haven’t heard that one. Yes, tolerant of all the things you mention except the pronouns. It’s a b****r to be reading a story with the pronoun thing and not being able to understand what it’s all about. Having to stop and rethink very few seconds. I resent that.
Good points. And yes, I think the decade long guilt trip is indeed running out of steam. Or at least others are running out of patience with the whole thing.
If someone wants to identify as a different gender, I don’t care. I support their behavior, including dress, pronouns, actions, etc. If they want to consider themselves a “woman”, I say, “sure….go for it.” Because it doesn’t affect me one way or another.
But when they want society to start a fundamental shift towards accepting them in women’s sports, considering them “birth bearers” or whatever the current nonsense term is, or allowing them in women’s spaces….nope. Because you aren’t really a “woman.”
Gender is something German nouns have. People have sex … no smirking at the back.
Gender is something German nouns have. People have sex … no smirking at the back.
Since I am generally disconnected from political and social life, my opinion on this is never solicited, for which I am happy. I don’t believe that transwomen are women – for lack of any standards or proof on either side of that equation.
I am happy to pass by anyone doing whatever they wish without laughing out loud just out of civility or compassion.
When doing ‘what they wish’ causes others real discomfort or is clearly unfair, then I will cast my vote out loud.
Good for you.
Good for you.
Since I am generally disconnected from political and social life, my opinion on this is never solicited, for which I am happy. I don’t believe that transwomen are women – for lack of any standards or proof on either side of that equation.
I am happy to pass by anyone doing whatever they wish without laughing out loud just out of civility or compassion.
When doing ‘what they wish’ causes others real discomfort or is clearly unfair, then I will cast my vote out loud.
Yet another great article. Many thanks! Your explanation of how 33% of respondents agree with the mantra “transwomen are women” is very credible. I really wonder how many of my fellow Scots actually know what “transgender woman” means. Maybe the pollsters should have put in an extra question as a covert gullibility meeasure: “Do you agree with the statement that fool’s gold is gold?”
As for politicians shutting down journalist inquiry by stating that trans folk are marginalised, etc., I can remember when jounralists started asking questions about the spiralling costs of the Scottish Parliament (It ended up costing ten times more than the original estimate.) Whenever New Labour politicians were questioned about this, they all repeated the mantra “Nobody said that democracy comes cheap”.
Yes, some trans and gay folk are bullied and attacked, but every 11 mins a biological woman is attacked in America. In 2020, 47,000 women and girls were killed by a partner of spouse world-wide. Misogyny has been around forever. Where is the outrage about that?
Yes, some trans and gay folk are bullied and attacked, but every 11 mins a biological woman is attacked in America. In 2020, 47,000 women and girls were killed by a partner of spouse world-wide. Misogyny has been around forever. Where is the outrage about that?
Yet another great article. Many thanks! Your explanation of how 33% of respondents agree with the mantra “transwomen are women” is very credible. I really wonder how many of my fellow Scots actually know what “transgender woman” means. Maybe the pollsters should have put in an extra question as a covert gullibility meeasure: “Do you agree with the statement that fool’s gold is gold?”
As for politicians shutting down journalist inquiry by stating that trans folk are marginalised, etc., I can remember when jounralists started asking questions about the spiralling costs of the Scottish Parliament (It ended up costing ten times more than the original estimate.) Whenever New Labour politicians were questioned about this, they all repeated the mantra “Nobody said that democracy comes cheap”.
Fabulous take on the situation, Kathleen! A practical solution to the matter would be to create a third “trans” category in sports. Biological men would not compete with biological women; they would compete and win awards against each other. When forced into a binary situation like locker rooms, prisons and bathrooms, default on the side of logic. Trans women would not be abused in a men’s prison, bathroom stall or locker room any more or less than gay men. Trans men could take their pick. The broad public in the Western world sympathizes with those with gender dysmorphia. The line is clearly drawn when virtue signaling activists try to impose nonsense on the general public.
Fabulous take on the situation, Kathleen! A practical solution to the matter would be to create a third “trans” category in sports. Biological men would not compete with biological women; they would compete and win awards against each other. When forced into a binary situation like locker rooms, prisons and bathrooms, default on the side of logic. Trans women would not be abused in a men’s prison, bathroom stall or locker room any more or less than gay men. Trans men could take their pick. The broad public in the Western world sympathizes with those with gender dysmorphia. The line is clearly drawn when virtue signaling activists try to impose nonsense on the general public.
there is no such thing as transition. you can re draw the map but it won’t change the land.
I am more inclined to think trans is for transubstantiation, as in “Transubstantiation is a kind of mystical, unexplainable change in form, substance, or appearance.”[vocabulary dot com]
I think it’s a gnostic belief – a gnosis arrived at via a marxist analysis of identity that the individual is not disordered but reality is distorted or wrong. They have an inner sexed soul-identity that has been thrown into a reality, and imprisoned in a mortal body against their will.
Thus they are right and true and the prison of reality is wrong or false and must be changed to cohere with the true sexed soul-identity which shall be freed.
What is a soul?
What is a soul?
I am more inclined to think trans is for transubstantiation, as in “Transubstantiation is a kind of mystical, unexplainable change in form, substance, or appearance.”[vocabulary dot com]
I think it’s a gnostic belief – a gnosis arrived at via a marxist analysis of identity that the individual is not disordered but reality is distorted or wrong. They have an inner sexed soul-identity that has been thrown into a reality, and imprisoned in a mortal body against their will.
Thus they are right and true and the prison of reality is wrong or false and must be changed to cohere with the true sexed soul-identity which shall be freed.
there is no such thing as transition. you can re draw the map but it won’t change the land.
“For instance, someone who says she believes that the sky is falling in, but who doesn’t duck or otherwise mention it in other relevant contexts, is perhaps not being entirely reliable.”
Could it be that Professor Stock is also a climate change sceptic?
I sincerely hope so.
“For instance, someone who says she believes that the sky is falling in, but who doesn’t duck or otherwise mention it in other relevant contexts, is perhaps not being entirely reliable.”
Could it be that Professor Stock is also a climate change sceptic?
I sincerely hope so.
In the olden days that is the eighties and nineties, there was a pretty clear distinction between transvestites (men who occassionally dressed as women for a thrill) and transsexuals (who went further having surgery in an attempt to better live as a woman). The extent to which this was accepted varied. Often quietly tolerated, they were often mocked and sometimes attacked.
It is reasonable that such unusual ways of living be better tolerated but, it seems to me, ye olde worlde way of understanding such things was better. Closer to reality. I doubt many transvestites would have believed that they were women and I guess transsexuals understood that they just lived as though they were women. I suspect the rest of us could quite easily live with that and while toilets and sports might have caused a few problems we might have messily muddled through.
I don’t think it necessary that to give trans people decent lies we have accept patent lies
Looks like it’s time, in the name if plain speaking, to resurrect the term transvestite. Whether “meatsuits” and/or clothsuits they are just types of transvestitism
Transsexualism/transgenderism is just a more extreme version of transvestitism. If surgery is used it is all purely plastic, it doesn’t make a man into a woman or vice versa. The only change to sexual function is to destroy their sexual organs.
People who undergo such procedures are seriously disturbed. I doubt that it helps their already troubled lives, and it is certainly nor something to be celebrated even if it is permitted.
.
Their demands have becoome more strident along with a sense of entitlement and guilt-tripping which is hard to swallow.
Looks like it’s time, in the name if plain speaking, to resurrect the term transvestite. Whether “meatsuits” and/or clothsuits they are just types of transvestitism
Transsexualism/transgenderism is just a more extreme version of transvestitism. If surgery is used it is all purely plastic, it doesn’t make a man into a woman or vice versa. The only change to sexual function is to destroy their sexual organs.
People who undergo such procedures are seriously disturbed. I doubt that it helps their already troubled lives, and it is certainly nor something to be celebrated even if it is permitted.
.
Their demands have becoome more strident along with a sense of entitlement and guilt-tripping which is hard to swallow.
In the olden days that is the eighties and nineties, there was a pretty clear distinction between transvestites (men who occassionally dressed as women for a thrill) and transsexuals (who went further having surgery in an attempt to better live as a woman). The extent to which this was accepted varied. Often quietly tolerated, they were often mocked and sometimes attacked.
It is reasonable that such unusual ways of living be better tolerated but, it seems to me, ye olde worlde way of understanding such things was better. Closer to reality. I doubt many transvestites would have believed that they were women and I guess transsexuals understood that they just lived as though they were women. I suspect the rest of us could quite easily live with that and while toilets and sports might have caused a few problems we might have messily muddled through.
I don’t think it necessary that to give trans people decent lies we have accept patent lies
One could say that 33% are potty, 33% awake and 34% either want to stay out of it or who have buried their heads in the sand.These untruths could be very dangerous to our country in the long run.
One could say that 33% are potty, 33% awake and 34% either want to stay out of it or who have buried their heads in the sand.These untruths could be very dangerous to our country in the long run.
Transwomen are biological men presenting as women. I was told this when I was 14 and still believe it. It was a transsexual woman who told me when I questioned whether or not she was actually a man. She should know since she had her op more than 50 years ago…
I remember,in the sixties, in London in a cafe seeing the most beautiful looking woman I had ever seen. The man at my table told me she used to be a man, and that he’d had sex with her not knowing that, but couldn’t tell the difference. There is no point to this story except that it made such an impression on me at the time, in many ways. The woman was April Ashley the first trans woman to have the surgery.
I remember,in the sixties, in London in a cafe seeing the most beautiful looking woman I had ever seen. The man at my table told me she used to be a man, and that he’d had sex with her not knowing that, but couldn’t tell the difference. There is no point to this story except that it made such an impression on me at the time, in many ways. The woman was April Ashley the first trans woman to have the surgery.
Transwomen are biological men presenting as women. I was told this when I was 14 and still believe it. It was a transsexual woman who told me when I questioned whether or not she was actually a man. She should know since she had her op more than 50 years ago…
At least in Scotland Ms Sturgeon is clear. It’s neither a biological nor a compassion issue.
Anyone can unequivocally be a real woman if they say they feel like one and it’s politically expedient for her. But it’s not at all clear that a trans woman is a real woman if it’s politically embarrassing for her- a sort have your trans cake and eat it solution.
While Ms S clearly has a downer on Scotlands private landlords, she obviously has some compassion for all those impoverished human rights lawyers north of Hadrian’s wall, who must now be browsing through estate agents websites, dreaming of the opulence they soon will be inhabiting.
At least in Scotland Ms Sturgeon is clear. It’s neither a biological nor a compassion issue.
Anyone can unequivocally be a real woman if they say they feel like one and it’s politically expedient for her. But it’s not at all clear that a trans woman is a real woman if it’s politically embarrassing for her- a sort have your trans cake and eat it solution.
While Ms S clearly has a downer on Scotlands private landlords, she obviously has some compassion for all those impoverished human rights lawyers north of Hadrian’s wall, who must now be browsing through estate agents websites, dreaming of the opulence they soon will be inhabiting.
The biological answer clarifys the question – females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have one X and one Y chromosome (allowing that there are other combinations) ergo a simple test, that is if one where ever needed, would inform the dulded or uneducated as to their gender/sex. Nearly sixty years ago, at school and in a nativity play I was once dressed as the backend of a donkey, I would have had to have been an ass to think that made me a donkey?
The biological answer clarifys the question – females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have one X and one Y chromosome (allowing that there are other combinations) ergo a simple test, that is if one where ever needed, would inform the dulded or uneducated as to their gender/sex. Nearly sixty years ago, at school and in a nativity play I was once dressed as the backend of a donkey, I would have had to have been an ass to think that made me a donkey?
Gender-affirming care should be just that; it should affirm the person’s gender, not their mental disorders, delusions, obsessions, or their TikTok Doc’s ability to make money off a social contagion. The hospitals and clinics that tell parents you can have a dead son or a trans daughter make me shudder. Knowing that lots of the kids struggling with their sexual identity are autistic is heartbreaking. Same for the kids who have been abused and are seeking refuge in a different gender identity. It’s criminal that the schools help grow this phenomenon as if it’s similar to lesbianism, homosexuality or bisexuality because it’s not. The internet and social media are such fertile spawning grounds for a lot of radicalizations – political, sexual, and more. We thought we’d be all good after we accepted homosexuality – and great that we did – but now that the rainbow is landing on this trans phenomenon we’re fools to include it. There are only males and females and no one can change anything but appearance. Bottom surgeries, top surgeries, hormones, hormone blockers. Ugh. They’re particularly cruel when they sterilize or remove all chances of ever having an orgasm. Historically, people that suffered gender dysphoria as children grew out of it and learned to live in the body they have as a lesbian, homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Now they don’t even get a chance. And then consider the detrans phenomenon, too. We’re not giving kids a chance to figure out who they are or what’s ailing them. We’re jumping to conclusions. Imagine if we affirmed suicidality by telling people to jump. That’s pretty much what we’re doing.
Gender-affirming care should be just that; it should affirm the person’s gender, not their mental disorders, delusions, obsessions, or their TikTok Doc’s ability to make money off a social contagion. The hospitals and clinics that tell parents you can have a dead son or a trans daughter make me shudder. Knowing that lots of the kids struggling with their sexual identity are autistic is heartbreaking. Same for the kids who have been abused and are seeking refuge in a different gender identity. It’s criminal that the schools help grow this phenomenon as if it’s similar to lesbianism, homosexuality or bisexuality because it’s not. The internet and social media are such fertile spawning grounds for a lot of radicalizations – political, sexual, and more. We thought we’d be all good after we accepted homosexuality – and great that we did – but now that the rainbow is landing on this trans phenomenon we’re fools to include it. There are only males and females and no one can change anything but appearance. Bottom surgeries, top surgeries, hormones, hormone blockers. Ugh. They’re particularly cruel when they sterilize or remove all chances of ever having an orgasm. Historically, people that suffered gender dysphoria as children grew out of it and learned to live in the body they have as a lesbian, homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Now they don’t even get a chance. And then consider the detrans phenomenon, too. We’re not giving kids a chance to figure out who they are or what’s ailing them. We’re jumping to conclusions. Imagine if we affirmed suicidality by telling people to jump. That’s pretty much what we’re doing.
I agree with everything in this article except the part about just believing trans-women are women makes it so. It’s more complicated than that for the social justice woke left.
They have to click their heels and repeat “There’s no women like trans-women” three times.
I don’t think the article was saying thinking you’re a woman makes it so.
I don’t think the article was saying thinking you’re a woman makes it so.
I agree with everything in this article except the part about just believing trans-women are women makes it so. It’s more complicated than that for the social justice woke left.
They have to click their heels and repeat “There’s no women like trans-women” three times.
“It’s as if the public has been sold a subliminal version of the Peter Pan story: say you believe that fairies exist, and you can save Tinkerbell from dying”.
Brilliant
“It’s as if the public has been sold a subliminal version of the Peter Pan story: say you believe that fairies exist, and you can save Tinkerbell from dying”.
Brilliant
You are the voice of reason Kathleen Stock
You are the voice of reason Kathleen Stock
Me? I’m a Trans-Zebra!
So let us poll the hoi-polloi yet again. Are Trans-Zebras, zebras?
Hmmm. Maybe Probably I guess. I mean, just logically, looking at the structure of this word-phrase that I’ve never heard before, Trans-Zebra, it seems clear that the nounish part is ‘zebra’ and the modifying part, ‘trans’. And since we know, and know absolutely, that brown dogs are dogs, as are white dogs, and spotted dogs, and big dogs, and old dogs (who never learn new tricks)…we know they’re all dogs…surely that same logic applies to trans-zebras, doesn’t it?
We know fat women are women. We know tall women are women..and short women, and pretty women, and blonde women. So, yes, I guess, absolutely trans-zebras must be zebras and trans-women, women! Otherwise why create that word-phrase that tells us quite exactly that?
And that’s the Catch… The problem is not in people’s understanding of the word, but the fact that we’ve allowed the word phrase even to exist. It describes a creature categorically impossible. Zebras are zebras and no man can be a zebra; no matter how many stripes he paints, no matter if he converts his very human feet into hoof alternatives; he’s still a non-zebra and will so remain, forever.
Equally a man can never ever ever ever become a woman, of any type. It’s impossible. As impossible as becoming a zebra, a chunk of granite, the next door apple tree, or a swirl of cotton candy. It can’t happen. Not at all. Never. We can never be a Trans Red Delicious Apple.
And that, then, is the Problem… No one here in this Post-Modern Paradise of Lived Truths and Zero Absolutes likes the idea that ANYTHING is impossible. No one here like the notion that there is some level of reality which remains, always, implacable. ineluctable, unchanging. I mean, gosh, that sounds offensive and hostile and non-inclusive and such, doesn’t it? I mean how bad is that?
And yet it’s true. Men can’t become women. They can’t become zebras. And they can’t become Red Delicious Apples. Pigs don’t fly. Ice is cold. Water is wet. Like picking-up a handful of sand and calling it trans-water. No; it’s not. It’s sand.
So let us run the poll again and ask just a slightly different question, one reality-aligned: Are men pretending to be women, women?
I trust even the Wokest of the Woke would struggle to say Yes.
Sadly, some would…if only because to say NO would be to deny the Man Pretending to be Woman his own lived truth.
And that is pathetic.
The good news, though, is I’ve changed my mind. I’m now a Trans Einstein. Any questions on the time-space continuum, just give me a holler!
Me? I’m a Trans-Zebra!
So let us poll the hoi-polloi yet again. Are Trans-Zebras, zebras?
Hmmm. Maybe Probably I guess. I mean, just logically, looking at the structure of this word-phrase that I’ve never heard before, Trans-Zebra, it seems clear that the nounish part is ‘zebra’ and the modifying part, ‘trans’. And since we know, and know absolutely, that brown dogs are dogs, as are white dogs, and spotted dogs, and big dogs, and old dogs (who never learn new tricks)…we know they’re all dogs…surely that same logic applies to trans-zebras, doesn’t it?
We know fat women are women. We know tall women are women..and short women, and pretty women, and blonde women. So, yes, I guess, absolutely trans-zebras must be zebras and trans-women, women! Otherwise why create that word-phrase that tells us quite exactly that?
And that’s the Catch… The problem is not in people’s understanding of the word, but the fact that we’ve allowed the word phrase even to exist. It describes a creature categorically impossible. Zebras are zebras and no man can be a zebra; no matter how many stripes he paints, no matter if he converts his very human feet into hoof alternatives; he’s still a non-zebra and will so remain, forever.
Equally a man can never ever ever ever become a woman, of any type. It’s impossible. As impossible as becoming a zebra, a chunk of granite, the next door apple tree, or a swirl of cotton candy. It can’t happen. Not at all. Never. We can never be a Trans Red Delicious Apple.
And that, then, is the Problem… No one here in this Post-Modern Paradise of Lived Truths and Zero Absolutes likes the idea that ANYTHING is impossible. No one here like the notion that there is some level of reality which remains, always, implacable. ineluctable, unchanging. I mean, gosh, that sounds offensive and hostile and non-inclusive and such, doesn’t it? I mean how bad is that?
And yet it’s true. Men can’t become women. They can’t become zebras. And they can’t become Red Delicious Apples. Pigs don’t fly. Ice is cold. Water is wet. Like picking-up a handful of sand and calling it trans-water. No; it’s not. It’s sand.
So let us run the poll again and ask just a slightly different question, one reality-aligned: Are men pretending to be women, women?
I trust even the Wokest of the Woke would struggle to say Yes.
Sadly, some would…if only because to say NO would be to deny the Man Pretending to be Woman his own lived truth.
And that is pathetic.
The good news, though, is I’ve changed my mind. I’m now a Trans Einstein. Any questions on the time-space continuum, just give me a holler!
The fact that this article is about women only suggests to me that the problem isn’t with transgender issues but female issues. As such, the discussion should be completely different.
Actually, it’s predominantly about males.
Absolutely Laura. This is what I’ve been saying. Is misogyny about men hating what they desire – women. Are these men becoming what they desire-women? It would seem the trans issue is more complicated than it seems, since it’s predominately about men wanting to be women.
Actually, it’s predominantly about males.
Absolutely Laura. This is what I’ve been saying. Is misogyny about men hating what they desire – women. Are these men becoming what they desire-women? It would seem the trans issue is more complicated than it seems, since it’s predominately about men wanting to be women.
The fact that this article is about women only suggests to me that the problem isn’t with transgender issues but female issues. As such, the discussion should be completely different.
Look. This is not that hard. For over a century the educated ruling class has ruled using a Political Formula that it is the moral arbiter of the nation and that helpless victims are its special charge. Today the LGBT+ sector of the ruling class is pushing the notion that transgenders are not just helpless victims but an Oppressed People. Not surprisingly, Good Little Boys and Good Little Girls that want good marks in school agree with their ruling class teachers.
Look. This is not that hard. For over a century the educated ruling class has ruled using a Political Formula that it is the moral arbiter of the nation and that helpless victims are its special charge. Today the LGBT+ sector of the ruling class is pushing the notion that transgenders are not just helpless victims but an Oppressed People. Not surprisingly, Good Little Boys and Good Little Girls that want good marks in school agree with their ruling class teachers.
Brilliant article! Thanks.
Brilliant article! Thanks.
It is such an insanely stupid question, made even stupider by the use of the deliberately phantasmagorical phrase, ‘trans women’.
Hats off to the LGBTQ+ Lobby for pushing this entry from the Lexicon of Eminently Silly Phrases (similar to Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Walks) front & center into common-media parlance: ‘trans women’, as though what it references really was in some way, shape, or form, a woman. Perhaps I can be the Trans-President? Not ‘really’ the president, mind you, just someone who believes himself to sort of be the President and is therefore owed all the bells & whistles the President is owed. Or maybe a Trans-Jeff Bezos? I’m not the richest man on earth, but I’d like to think of myself as Jeffy B.: can you book me a private jet, please & thank-you?
Of course men pretending to be women are not women. Neither are cats pretending to be dogs, actually dogs. Nor am I actually a zebra, even though I really-truly-in-my-heart-of-hearts believe myself all striped and hooved and such. (please hold that bale of hay!)
Unfortunately the use of the phantasmagorical phrase is itself confusing because some of the more common-sensical among us may be totally baffled by all this name-change idiocy and think that a ‘trans’ woman really is a woman who’s pretending to be a man. (You really do need a Program!)
But I suspect the more realistic explanation of the percentages reported is the very sad fact that an awful lot of well-meaning people have somehow come to believe that no one’s feelings should ever be hurt by reality….that offending someone is right up there next to murder and rape as an unforgivable crime. It’s not, of course; it’s just reality — but shhhh! Don’t tell anyone.
‘Yes, Bill over there who’s pretending to be Brenda is, of course, really Bill…but he’s so sincere in his beliefs and I know he’d feel bad if someone mean actually called him Bill so let’s just all play-pretend with ‘Brenda’ cause otherwise Bill’s — I mean Brenda’s — feelings will be hurt and her belly get all woosy with a case of the Vapors! But, of course, we’re sure as hell not letting Brenda compete against real girls, that would be a crime!
Just say NO. No, that’s not true. We should stop repeating it.. The lie is a lie. Bill cannot become Brenda. Boys cannot become girls and girls cannot become boys. Rover can never become Garfield the Cat. Sorry Rover! And if someone’s feeling are indeed hurt by reality, well….they need to grow-up! That’s really all there is to this. Life is hard, but it’s harder if you’re stupid.
It is such an insanely stupid question, made even stupider by the use of the deliberately phantasmagorical phrase, ‘trans women’.
Hats off to the LGBTQ+ Lobby for pushing this entry from the Lexicon of Eminently Silly Phrases (similar to Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Walks) front & center into common-media parlance: ‘trans women’, as though what it references really was in some way, shape, or form, a woman. Perhaps I can be the Trans-President? Not ‘really’ the president, mind you, just someone who believes himself to sort of be the President and is therefore owed all the bells & whistles the President is owed. Or maybe a Trans-Jeff Bezos? I’m not the richest man on earth, but I’d like to think of myself as Jeffy B.: can you book me a private jet, please & thank-you?
Of course men pretending to be women are not women. Neither are cats pretending to be dogs, actually dogs. Nor am I actually a zebra, even though I really-truly-in-my-heart-of-hearts believe myself all striped and hooved and such. (please hold that bale of hay!)
Unfortunately the use of the phantasmagorical phrase is itself confusing because some of the more common-sensical among us may be totally baffled by all this name-change idiocy and think that a ‘trans’ woman really is a woman who’s pretending to be a man. (You really do need a Program!)
But I suspect the more realistic explanation of the percentages reported is the very sad fact that an awful lot of well-meaning people have somehow come to believe that no one’s feelings should ever be hurt by reality….that offending someone is right up there next to murder and rape as an unforgivable crime. It’s not, of course; it’s just reality — but shhhh! Don’t tell anyone.
‘Yes, Bill over there who’s pretending to be Brenda is, of course, really Bill…but he’s so sincere in his beliefs and I know he’d feel bad if someone mean actually called him Bill so let’s just all play-pretend with ‘Brenda’ cause otherwise Bill’s — I mean Brenda’s — feelings will be hurt and her belly get all woosy with a case of the Vapors! But, of course, we’re sure as hell not letting Brenda compete against real girls, that would be a crime!
Just say NO. No, that’s not true. We should stop repeating it.. The lie is a lie. Bill cannot become Brenda. Boys cannot become girls and girls cannot become boys. Rover can never become Garfield the Cat. Sorry Rover! And if someone’s feeling are indeed hurt by reality, well….they need to grow-up! That’s really all there is to this. Life is hard, but it’s harder if you’re stupid.
The REAL problem with this whole category of ideological obsession is that the population as a whole KNOW where babies come from, and tend to regard that as the important part of the debate.
If “trans women” were women then we’d not need a distinct sub-category.
The short version of The Problem with Trans Women Are Women.
They aren’t.
Interestingly the former punishment for High Treason in England used to involve a brief moment of “Trans” when the malefactor was castrated, prior to being disembowelled (alive).
A contemporary account put it thus:-
“The 20th of the same month, a gallows and a scaffold being set up for the purpose in St. Giles his fieldes where they were wont to meet, the first 7 were hanged thereon, cut down, their privities cut off, bowelled alive and seeing, and quartered”.*
(William Camden’s account of the execution of Babington & Co, 20th September, 1586 last.)
Easier wearing a kilt, and could use the dirk?
What happened to women?
Easier wearing a kilt, and could use the dirk?
What happened to women?
Interestingly the former punishment for High Treason in England used to involve a brief moment of “Trans” when the malefactor was castrated, prior to being disembowelled (alive).
A contemporary account put it thus:-
“The 20th of the same month, a gallows and a scaffold being set up for the purpose in St. Giles his fieldes where they were wont to meet, the first 7 were hanged thereon, cut down, their privities cut off, bowelled alive and seeing, and quartered”.*
(William Camden’s account of the execution of Babington & Co, 20th September, 1586 last.)
.
Trans women are women by courtesy. And by courtesy only. Not puncturing someone’s pretending is politeness, even, you might say, compassion.
But what is a “woman” in ‘trans woman’?
I don’t think it is ‘pretending’ as such. I think it is a delusion in the true sense of the word. I agree courtesy is involved. But that must be based on the understanding of how reality is constituted. And I think that is a problem because the delusion is grounded in a beliefs about reality that they claim are actually true – that a person can be trans. Not identify as trans but are trans.
For me, if that is the case, the burden is on that person to explain why everybody else should have to reflect their delusion.
And when a woman is told that a man is going to be (1) showering next to her in the prison washroom, (2) sharing space with her and her baby in a women’s refuge, (3) taking her place on the podium at a women’s sports competition, is she obliged to be courteous? The imposition of ‘courtesy’ is the first step down the stairs to the cellar of lunacy.
We should tell the emporer he has no clothes.
We should tell the emporer he has no clothes.
I’m done with courtesy.
If I believe myself you….and I enter your home….make a meal and find a comfy chair to watch TV…would that courtesy extend to you allowing & enabling that irrational intrusion by me, pretending to be you?? Wouldn’t it be impolite for you to yell — even a bit — and tell me to leave or you’re calling the police? Surely you would not be so cruel as to puncture my pretending (even as I show-up day after day after day…and insist that you, yourself, leave what I believe — in all sincerity — to be my home)?
No, my friend, so-called trans women are not women. They can never be women, and if — in their delusion — they’ve come to believe themselves women, then such delusions must be disabused. It is not compassion to pretend to a full-grown adult that they’re something they can never be.
And even if their surgeons, their stylists, and their closets combine to create a perfect illusion of woman, still, they’re not women. They’re just men who’ve become really good at playing pretend. And if, indeed, we wish to be compassionate we’ll recognize women as women and not tell them that some man playing pretend is the Woman of the Year…or the winner of some Beauty Contest.
But what is a “woman” in ‘trans woman’?
I don’t think it is ‘pretending’ as such. I think it is a delusion in the true sense of the word. I agree courtesy is involved. But that must be based on the understanding of how reality is constituted. And I think that is a problem because the delusion is grounded in a beliefs about reality that they claim are actually true – that a person can be trans. Not identify as trans but are trans.
For me, if that is the case, the burden is on that person to explain why everybody else should have to reflect their delusion.
And when a woman is told that a man is going to be (1) showering next to her in the prison washroom, (2) sharing space with her and her baby in a women’s refuge, (3) taking her place on the podium at a women’s sports competition, is she obliged to be courteous? The imposition of ‘courtesy’ is the first step down the stairs to the cellar of lunacy.
I’m done with courtesy.
If I believe myself you….and I enter your home….make a meal and find a comfy chair to watch TV…would that courtesy extend to you allowing & enabling that irrational intrusion by me, pretending to be you?? Wouldn’t it be impolite for you to yell — even a bit — and tell me to leave or you’re calling the police? Surely you would not be so cruel as to puncture my pretending (even as I show-up day after day after day…and insist that you, yourself, leave what I believe — in all sincerity — to be my home)?
No, my friend, so-called trans women are not women. They can never be women, and if — in their delusion — they’ve come to believe themselves women, then such delusions must be disabused. It is not compassion to pretend to a full-grown adult that they’re something they can never be.
And even if their surgeons, their stylists, and their closets combine to create a perfect illusion of woman, still, they’re not women. They’re just men who’ve become really good at playing pretend. And if, indeed, we wish to be compassionate we’ll recognize women as women and not tell them that some man playing pretend is the Woman of the Year…or the winner of some Beauty Contest.
Trans women are women by courtesy. And by courtesy only. Not puncturing someone’s pretending is politeness, even, you might say, compassion.
These largely stupid terms have been inexcusably skewed to support transgender ideology.
A man who is hoping to pass himself off as a woman and who considers himself “transitioned” is still a man. So, he should be called a “trans-man”.
With that measure, a “trans-woman” is a woman.
These largely stupid terms have been inexcusably skewed to support transgender ideology.
A man who is hoping to pass himself off as a woman and who considers himself “transitioned” is still a man. So, he should be called a “trans-man”.
With that measure, a “trans-woman” is a woman.
.
This whole article is really about the systematic degradation of rational thought, and its replacement with emotional incontinence.
I’m old enough to have been born into a world in which genuinely dangerous diseases – diseases which killed, or inflicted life-changing consequences upon ouble-digit percentages of those contracting them – were endemic, and highly infectious.
Everyone knew someone who had suffered the consequences of TB, of diphtheria, whooping cough, polio or scarlet fever. Of measles, which can adversely affect pregnant mothers and their fetuses.
By great effort, in which lockdowns and face masks played no part whatsoever, we eradicated these scourges
Now we have a generation which appears to believe that it is utterly outrageous that anyone should suffer from any disease whatsoever, and that no consequences are too extreme in pursuit of that will-o’-the-whisp. This isn’t thinking.
After an initial euphoria, a trans-person who thought he/she would be gaining the best of both worlds, gradually become painfully disillusioned because they realise that they well never be involved in a meaningful relationship and have, in fact the worse of both worlds. This gradually leads to despondency, depression and suicide. This is why compassion is not a useful tool.
I remember being quite surprised when I first visited France, seeing public toilets used by both sexes. I don’t remember them being attended by any of the current brouhaha; they were simply a utilitarian feature outside the conventions of daily life.
I saw both-sex toilets in US offices in the late 80s or early 90s and no-one thought them remarkable (actually that not true, you only saw them in NY or SoCal)
Both sexes also share the facilities on planes and trains. It’s only when we have communal areas for washing hands etc that problems arise
Fine, but one loo, one user on trains and planes usually, so we have no choice, and we do have that space to ourselves. As you mention a communal area is more problematic.
An anecdote. Several years ago, in Cambridge I entered a public toilet, the ‘Ladies’. I joined the queue (usual form for a female loo.) Women seemed to be leaving quickly however,and the queue was moving quickly too.This was an unusual occurrence. I discovered why when I rounded the corner. There propped up by the sinks and staring brazenly at the line of women were two men, in female clothing. (Cheap polyester tat, but that’s another story.) Broad shouldered, tall, complete with Adam’s apples and stubble. Men in dresses plastered in badly applied make-up.
They were intimidating and almost daring any woman to ask them what they were doing in a female toilet. They stared and grinned, seeming to enjoy our discomfort. They obviously had no need to relieve themselves and were there to make a point, a stand. Very few women went on to enter a cubicle, they turned and left. I did too.
This was a few years ago, long before the trans activists were making the headlines, long before we were told that we could identify as anyone or anything we wanted to be. I am not easily intimidated but I wasn’t up to standing up to two six-footers in wigs daring me to call them out.I was surrounded by women needing to use the toilet, most of whom left quickly when they realised they’d have to wait and use one of the five cubicles while there were two hulking great blokes outside observing, loitering, blocking the sinks. It was frightening. A lone woman might have been terrified.
Do such men not understand how a woman might feel in such a situation? Do they get a vicarious thrill from being in a place not usually open to them? I read somewhere quite recently that cross dressers get a sexual frisson from the wearing of women’s clothing, from parading as a woman. If they are sexually stimulated/aroused whilst wearing a frock, knickers and carrying a handbag, should ANYONE feel safe in their vicinity? I appreciate I am digressing, but female safety is at the heart of this awful pandering to a minority of delusional – or maybe predatory? – males.
Let’s forget the pressure on us to care, to ‘be kind’. (How subtly evil, restrictive and censorious is that social media trend?) We need to be angry, very angry that such dangerous ‘inclusivity’ is indulged and lauded.
Only one toilet?
Only one toilet?
Not a fair representation of reality. Yes, we may share the same loo, but on a train or plane it is a single person cubicle, sealed. Locked. In public loos cubicles are open at the top and bottom and have thin walls. The wash basins are shared. My wife and daughters do not want to share that space with men.
Fine, but one loo, one user on trains and planes usually, so we have no choice, and we do have that space to ourselves. As you mention a communal area is more problematic.
An anecdote. Several years ago, in Cambridge I entered a public toilet, the ‘Ladies’. I joined the queue (usual form for a female loo.) Women seemed to be leaving quickly however,and the queue was moving quickly too.This was an unusual occurrence. I discovered why when I rounded the corner. There propped up by the sinks and staring brazenly at the line of women were two men, in female clothing. (Cheap polyester tat, but that’s another story.) Broad shouldered, tall, complete with Adam’s apples and stubble. Men in dresses plastered in badly applied make-up.
They were intimidating and almost daring any woman to ask them what they were doing in a female toilet. They stared and grinned, seeming to enjoy our discomfort. They obviously had no need to relieve themselves and were there to make a point, a stand. Very few women went on to enter a cubicle, they turned and left. I did too.
This was a few years ago, long before the trans activists were making the headlines, long before we were told that we could identify as anyone or anything we wanted to be. I am not easily intimidated but I wasn’t up to standing up to two six-footers in wigs daring me to call them out.I was surrounded by women needing to use the toilet, most of whom left quickly when they realised they’d have to wait and use one of the five cubicles while there were two hulking great blokes outside observing, loitering, blocking the sinks. It was frightening. A lone woman might have been terrified.
Do such men not understand how a woman might feel in such a situation? Do they get a vicarious thrill from being in a place not usually open to them? I read somewhere quite recently that cross dressers get a sexual frisson from the wearing of women’s clothing, from parading as a woman. If they are sexually stimulated/aroused whilst wearing a frock, knickers and carrying a handbag, should ANYONE feel safe in their vicinity? I appreciate I am digressing, but female safety is at the heart of this awful pandering to a minority of delusional – or maybe predatory? – males.
Let’s forget the pressure on us to care, to ‘be kind’. (How subtly evil, restrictive and censorious is that social media trend?) We need to be angry, very angry that such dangerous ‘inclusivity’ is indulged and lauded.
Not a fair representation of reality. Yes, we may share the same loo, but on a train or plane it is a single person cubicle, sealed. Locked. In public loos cubicles are open at the top and bottom and have thin walls. The wash basins are shared. My wife and daughters do not want to share that space with men.
This relates to the design of toilet facilities: how much do they preserve privacy, dignity and safety. There are many different kinds of mixed-sex toilets in different situations. A series of well-enclosed cubicles in a busy pub with a communal wash area – like one I frequent – is happily used by both sexes. That design may not work, however, in a late-night railway station, where separate male and female facilities would be optimal for safety. Sex Matters has produced a very good guide on this which you can read on their website.
I have the impression that women’s public toilets are likely to be clean and tidy, whilst men’s are usually ….not. If this is correct, how are we to measure the distress of a transwoman over binary sexed toilets, against the distress over women using toilets that have been ‘sprayed’ by men. Do women just have to ‘take one for the team’, alongside losing out on those athletic medals, and not being allowed to have natal-women only refuges?
I would’ve thought so too… until a former partner came out of some women’s toilets and said “Some women are just disgusting.”
I hesitated to enquire further, but asked her if those toilets she’d just emerged from were unusual. “Not at all”.
I left it at that.
I have heard the same thing from my wife.
Some people have OCD about standards of cleanliness
Some people have OCD about standards of cleanliness
Could be a self-report bias (yr wifes high standards)! Maybe tho I’m out of date – the mens loos have got a lot better in 40 years, or is that just my memory bias?
One swallow doesn’t make a summer.
I have heard the same thing from my wife.
Could be a self-report bias (yr wifes high standards)! Maybe tho I’m out of date – the mens loos have got a lot better in 40 years, or is that just my memory bias?
One swallow doesn’t make a summer.
I would’ve thought so too… until a former partner came out of some women’s toilets and said “Some women are just disgusting.”
I hesitated to enquire further, but asked her if those toilets she’d just emerged from were unusual. “Not at all”.
I left it at that.
Both sexes also share the facilities on planes and trains. It’s only when we have communal areas for washing hands etc that problems arise
This relates to the design of toilet facilities: how much do they preserve privacy, dignity and safety. There are many different kinds of mixed-sex toilets in different situations. A series of well-enclosed cubicles in a busy pub with a communal wash area – like one I frequent – is happily used by both sexes. That design may not work, however, in a late-night railway station, where separate male and female facilities would be optimal for safety. Sex Matters has produced a very good guide on this which you can read on their website.
I have the impression that women’s public toilets are likely to be clean and tidy, whilst men’s are usually ….not. If this is correct, how are we to measure the distress of a transwoman over binary sexed toilets, against the distress over women using toilets that have been ‘sprayed’ by men. Do women just have to ‘take one for the team’, alongside losing out on those athletic medals, and not being allowed to have natal-women only refuges?
I remember being quite surprised when I first visited France, seeing public toilets used by both sexes. I don’t remember them being attended by any of the current brouhaha; they were simply a utilitarian feature outside the conventions of daily life.
I saw both-sex toilets in US offices in the late 80s or early 90s and no-one thought them remarkable (actually that not true, you only saw them in NY or SoCal)
No mystery, Kat – British people just want to be polite
It’s not polite to humour deluded people.
This. It is not polite and it is sure as hell dangerous for others to lie, because basing actions on a falsehood leads to harm, at some point down the line, such as distorting reality. The reason why such things are harmful is because they are false.
This. It is not polite and it is sure as hell dangerous for others to lie, because basing actions on a falsehood leads to harm, at some point down the line, such as distorting reality. The reason why such things are harmful is because they are false.
But it’s insincere.
It’s not polite to humour deluded people.
But it’s insincere.
No mystery, Kat – British people just want to be polite
You do it to yourself, you do
And that’s what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself, just you
You and no one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
I do not know – JP Sears, the comedian who manages to not get banned from Youtube would say otherwise – and his few minute skit of the new teacher and the innocent children seems to infer that choices are not solely ‘you did it to yourself’, but can be greatly influenced….
If you have not watched – this MOST outrageous video on trans teachers you should, you will never be the same again, haha…just a couple minutes, and it is on Youtube – so seems to have passed the thought censors…’Welcome to your first day of class children’…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i8PYJfFbhw
I would like to make a complaint ; you should have prefixed the recommendation with a trigger warning “do not watch this YouTube video with a full bladder”.
Brilliant 🙂
I would like to make a complaint ; you should have prefixed the recommendation with a trigger warning “do not watch this YouTube video with a full bladder”.
Brilliant 🙂
I do not know – JP Sears, the comedian who manages to not get banned from Youtube would say otherwise – and his few minute skit of the new teacher and the innocent children seems to infer that choices are not solely ‘you did it to yourself’, but can be greatly influenced….
If you have not watched – this MOST outrageous video on trans teachers you should, you will never be the same again, haha…just a couple minutes, and it is on Youtube – so seems to have passed the thought censors…’Welcome to your first day of class children’…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i8PYJfFbhw
You do it to yourself, you do
And that’s what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself, just you
You and no one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
How about we refuse to use the term gender and just talk about sex, and the ‘social construction of sex in culture’. There is no such thing as gender, just sex, and sex functioning in society/culture….tethered by a leash of varying lengths but always tethered.
But Kathleen – you are as usual not taking any responsibility. It was academic feminists and feminist activists in the 70s who introduced this confusion, not least with their war on motherhood and denial of sex differences even in areas such as making war. Feminists pushed to be fighter pilots and CEOs….but the guys cleaning massive fatty-excremental-sewage-shit balls from the London sewers …or roofing in the winter…..not so much. How about you start by acknowledging that Jordan Peterson is right about the average psycho-social differences between men and women….and the social consequences of those differences….and that 90% of feminists have been and continue to be wrong. Gender critical feminists are in denial about these things, almost as much as perverted fetishistic men, so called queer non-binary teens and pedophile-facilitators
Well, interestingly, Kelly-Jay Keen mentions women having a ‘social currency’ within their own cirlces in which it is most important to be liked, to conform etc etc. and men don’t have those standards to a similar degree. This is the 1st time I have heard this being expressed as a difference between men and women that effects their responses to social contagions etc.
The video is on her YouTube channel in which she is being interviewed on GBNews.
Peterson also makes the point that women tend to be more compassionate, and sometimes we can be too compassionate.
Is there such a thing as too much compassion?
Is there such a thing as too much compassion?
That is an extremely sexist – if I may use the term – attempt at shifting the ground!
Feminism, and feminists, didn’t ever say that women can be men. They always maintained that the artificial barriers built by men to keep women out of certain occupations, and to denigrate ‘women’s work’ were not based on reality, but only on a determination to ‘find’ reasons why women can’t/shouldn’t/must not be allowed the same range of opportunities as men. In the fifties and sixties, it was the ‘men have to earn for the whole family; women’s wages are pin-money’ line. Difficult to maintain when the vast majority of single parents left to provide for themselves and their children were, at the time, women. Before that, there was the fatuous pronouncement that women’s brains just weren’t up to rational thinking, or academic study, or that women’s uteruses were in the habit of moving around the body, and interfering with the workings of their minds. So, of course, women must be banned from playing football (when they were winning against teams of men!) at ANY level beyond puberty, or from studying at University, rowing, or voting. None of which activities has any greater affinity for one human sex above the other.
As for the fat-busting, to bring it more up-to-date – how many men CHOOSE that as their occupation rather than – um – fall into it? And the front-line fighting? It’s the norm in many countries; the reluctance here is from the top brass, not from ‘women’ per se.
You don’t build a good case, or even a case, by trotting out such favourite prejudices.
It’s sad, Kate, that as of Feb 18 you only have 2 likes, and one is mine. You wrote a factual piece.
It’s sad, Kate, that as of Feb 18 you only have 2 likes, and one is mine. You wrote a factual piece.
Well, interestingly, Kelly-Jay Keen mentions women having a ‘social currency’ within their own cirlces in which it is most important to be liked, to conform etc etc. and men don’t have those standards to a similar degree. This is the 1st time I have heard this being expressed as a difference between men and women that effects their responses to social contagions etc.
The video is on her YouTube channel in which she is being interviewed on GBNews.
Peterson also makes the point that women tend to be more compassionate, and sometimes we can be too compassionate.
That is an extremely sexist – if I may use the term – attempt at shifting the ground!
Feminism, and feminists, didn’t ever say that women can be men. They always maintained that the artificial barriers built by men to keep women out of certain occupations, and to denigrate ‘women’s work’ were not based on reality, but only on a determination to ‘find’ reasons why women can’t/shouldn’t/must not be allowed the same range of opportunities as men. In the fifties and sixties, it was the ‘men have to earn for the whole family; women’s wages are pin-money’ line. Difficult to maintain when the vast majority of single parents left to provide for themselves and their children were, at the time, women. Before that, there was the fatuous pronouncement that women’s brains just weren’t up to rational thinking, or academic study, or that women’s uteruses were in the habit of moving around the body, and interfering with the workings of their minds. So, of course, women must be banned from playing football (when they were winning against teams of men!) at ANY level beyond puberty, or from studying at University, rowing, or voting. None of which activities has any greater affinity for one human sex above the other.
As for the fat-busting, to bring it more up-to-date – how many men CHOOSE that as their occupation rather than – um – fall into it? And the front-line fighting? It’s the norm in many countries; the reluctance here is from the top brass, not from ‘women’ per se.
You don’t build a good case, or even a case, by trotting out such favourite prejudices.
How about we refuse to use the term gender and just talk about sex, and the ‘social construction of sex in culture’. There is no such thing as gender, just sex, and sex functioning in society/culture….tethered by a leash of varying lengths but always tethered.
But Kathleen – you are as usual not taking any responsibility. It was academic feminists and feminist activists in the 70s who introduced this confusion, not least with their war on motherhood and denial of sex differences even in areas such as making war. Feminists pushed to be fighter pilots and CEOs….but the guys cleaning massive fatty-excremental-sewage-shit balls from the London sewers …or roofing in the winter…..not so much. How about you start by acknowledging that Jordan Peterson is right about the average psycho-social differences between men and women….and the social consequences of those differences….and that 90% of feminists have been and continue to be wrong. Gender critical feminists are in denial about these things, almost as much as perverted fetishistic men, so called queer non-binary teens and pedophile-facilitators
Has anyone here bothered to read Jan Morris’s autobigraphy Conundrum ?
The first sentence reads :
“I was three or perhaps four years old when I realised that I had been born into the wrong body and should really be a girl ”
She then goes on to describe, every which way, what it was like for her psychologically, physically, socially, emotionally, sexually living this almost ectopic existence until she went through surgery at the age of 46 and then her experiences afterwards as a newly minted woman.
As she describes, after the surgery “I was made, by my own light, normal.”
Personally, I found some of the prose both self serving and saccharine but as a fully rounded out description of what it is like being “trans” (however you want to define that term) I think that it would be hard to beat. Highly recommended for those who are curious and open.
I think it is a shame that there aren’t more first person trans narratives of this quality available in order to broaden perspectives and shine a torch on preconceived notions.
As for compassion, I too, don’t subscribe to N Foster’s view of what this emotion encompasses. For me, it is the ability to empathise and accept. This doesn’t preclude having a conversation but accepting that you can never walk in someone elses moccasins has to be a given.
As for equanimity I use that word in relation to not getting hot under the collar about things I can’t change. This may or may not include some form of suffering.
It isn’t my description. It’s the Buddhas’. You’re welcome to disagree with him if you wish.
And evoking standpoint epistemology (your moccasins comment) is an attempt to control the speech of others. It is not for you to decide what others speak of. So it isn’t a given. It’s controlling behaviour.
Yes, but I do wonder how much has been lost in translation / reinterpreted / recast over the centuries (applicable to all belief systems) and to what extent any belief system is context specific.
What I was trying to say with the moccasin comment was that you can’t enter someone elses’s body and mind and know what they are feeling or thinking, really.
Again, – the Buddha taught exactly how to understand experience. He taught us to observe hinderances internally and externally. It is perfectly possible to observe dukkha in ourselves and others. Dukkha is experienced by all.
Standpoint epistemology (lived experience) is an attempt to elevate and ring fence all manner of views and positions above and beyond cross examination or challenge.
Its a power play. It is dishonest, and it is controlling behaviour.
Follow your line of thought and we end up exactly where we are: Male rapists claiming to be women in female prisons.
There are so many people who are unable to be empathic or even compassionate. I find that lack in others to be the most painful part of living.
Again, – the Buddha taught exactly how to understand experience. He taught us to observe hinderances internally and externally. It is perfectly possible to observe dukkha in ourselves and others. Dukkha is experienced by all.
Standpoint epistemology (lived experience) is an attempt to elevate and ring fence all manner of views and positions above and beyond cross examination or challenge.
Its a power play. It is dishonest, and it is controlling behaviour.
Follow your line of thought and we end up exactly where we are: Male rapists claiming to be women in female prisons.
There are so many people who are unable to be empathic or even compassionate. I find that lack in others to be the most painful part of living.
Yes, but I do wonder how much has been lost in translation / reinterpreted / recast over the centuries (applicable to all belief systems) and to what extent any belief system is context specific.
What I was trying to say with the moccasin comment was that you can’t enter someone elses’s body and mind and know what they are feeling or thinking, really.
‘Has anyone here bothered to read Jan Morris’s autobigraphy Conundrum ?’
I have. The one thing I took away from it above all others was how thoroughly it side-lined Morris’s wife, who remained a faithful wife, mother, hand servant and general dogsbody throughout Morris’s long and thoroughly narcissistic existence.
But then, like a lot of things, it’s never really been about women, has it?
I understand also that Paul Clement’s biography alludes to some problems with one or more of his children.
Personally, I am always very chary about interpreting family dynamics from afar. She did stick with Jan Morris throughout so presumably she was getting something of value from the relationship (?)
Germaine Greer was not impressed by ‘Conundrum’, brilliantly pointing out that [Morris’s wife] ‘Elizabeth’s unbroken silence is the truest measure of Jan Morris’s enduring masculinity.’
Many years later, Morris’s daughter Suki said that Greer had been ‘dead right.’
I would recommend ‘Jan Morris: Life from Both Sides’ by Paul Clements (2022). It was reviewed by Melanie Reid in The Times. It recognises Morris as a great talent but also, as Reid puts it, ‘disgracefully self-centred’. For me, perhaps the most telling line in the entire review is this:
Wow! Says it all.
Wow! Says it all.
But women notoriously stay in abusive relationships.
Germaine Greer was not impressed by ‘Conundrum’, brilliantly pointing out that [Morris’s wife] ‘Elizabeth’s unbroken silence is the truest measure of Jan Morris’s enduring masculinity.’
Many years later, Morris’s daughter Suki said that Greer had been ‘dead right.’
I would recommend ‘Jan Morris: Life from Both Sides’ by Paul Clements (2022). It was reviewed by Melanie Reid in The Times. It recognises Morris as a great talent but also, as Reid puts it, ‘disgracefully self-centred’. For me, perhaps the most telling line in the entire review is this:
But women notoriously stay in abusive relationships.
Exactly. It’s all about men.
I understand also that Paul Clement’s biography alludes to some problems with one or more of his children.
Personally, I am always very chary about interpreting family dynamics from afar. She did stick with Jan Morris throughout so presumably she was getting something of value from the relationship (?)
Exactly. It’s all about men.
Elaine, I have read Conundrum and found it highly illuminating.
After reading it, it struck me that no one who wakes up in the morning without any doubt about their gender can possibly place themselves in the position of the Jan Morris’s of this world. Just as Jan would never have been able to understand that certainty.
That sense that neither can empathize nor really understand each other, is why the journey has always been about self-diagnosis and all that a psychologist can do is look for warning signs of any other attendant issues and its those other issues that can and need addressing.
That is precisely why reassigning gender should not be undertaken with children and should not be made easier for adults.
That is quite separate from whether transvestites should use women’s spaces, they should not.
I agree with you absolutely regarding gender reassignment in children and transvestites in men’s and women’s spaces (although I can imagine social mores for the latter may be very different in places like Phuket).
Not sure whether Jan Morris would or would not have been able to understand the certainty a 100% cisgendered individual would feel, as from memory, she only discusses this obliquely in Conundrum (when she talks about sex and gender as a scale and a pointer). Since she had a 100% conviction that she was female from an early age one could speculate that she would understand that cisgendered individuals held a similar 100% conviction, namely that their anatomy conformed absolutely with their perceived gender and so everything was acceptable / normal / fine.
I agree with you absolutely regarding gender reassignment in children and transvestites in men’s and women’s spaces (although I can imagine social mores for the latter may be very different in places like Phuket).
Not sure whether Jan Morris would or would not have been able to understand the certainty a 100% cisgendered individual would feel, as from memory, she only discusses this obliquely in Conundrum (when she talks about sex and gender as a scale and a pointer). Since she had a 100% conviction that she was female from an early age one could speculate that she would understand that cisgendered individuals held a similar 100% conviction, namely that their anatomy conformed absolutely with their perceived gender and so everything was acceptable / normal / fine.
“… I had been born into the wrong body and should really be a girl ”
This is notion of “throne-ness” – that an inner sexed soul-identity has been thrown into reality and imprisoned within a bodying.
Using the ideology of qu–r marxism a special critical consciousness is achieved – a gnosis, that reality of the body and the exterior world is understood to be false or wrong, a prison, which can be changed to match the true, inner self, thus setting it free.
This is a delusion. The question is how such a delusion is to be treated – as care in the community or with professional help, or both.
The problem comes, as I see it, with the 1st option because any attempt to demand or coerce people affirm such a delusion is is to have them lie about what they perceive as reality.
Believing that you are in the wrong body is only a delusion if you believe that your anatomy determines absolutely who you are.
Jan Morris describes it this way :
“…that my conundrum might simply be a matter of p***s or vagina, testicle or womb, seems to me still a contradiction in terms, for it concerned not my apparatus, but my self”
Your anatomy determines your biological sex. If your perceive yourself as other than that sex, that may be your kamma, but it remains a delusion.
Your infatuation with the thoughts of Jan Morris remind me of a sutta from the Pali canon.
“Followers, can an unwise person know of an unwise person, that this person is an unwise person?”
No, it is not possible.
I don’t want you to suffer Elaine, but as long as you cling to these views, you will.
Surely to say who is or who is not unwise is subjective.
Surely to say who is or who is not unwise is subjective.
Let me fix that for you.
The very idea of being ‘born in the wrong body’ is only meaningful if you believe human beings have a spirit that exists independently of and outside the boundaries of our physical existence.
In other words, the concept of gender identity is not derived from reality, science or rationalism, but from a spiritual conviction. Accepting the reality of gender identity is a tenet of faith, and should be regarded in the same way as any other tenet of faith in any other belief system.
Gender identity ideology is a church, a theology, which – like any other recognised theology – people should be free to practise or not, to agree with or not, to believe in or not.
What it should not be is the basis for the law, because that way theocracy lies.
Belief and soul smack of religion. If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe. I suspect soul means different things to different people.
Belief and soul smack of religion. If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe. I suspect soul means different things to different people.
So they want their female brains transferred into a female body? This is all nonsense. “Feelings” of being male or female are totally subjective. There is no “right” way to feel that makes you a man or a woman.
So much is socialization.
So much is socialization.
Your anatomy determines your biological sex. If your perceive yourself as other than that sex, that may be your kamma, but it remains a delusion.
Your infatuation with the thoughts of Jan Morris remind me of a sutta from the Pali canon.
“Followers, can an unwise person know of an unwise person, that this person is an unwise person?”
No, it is not possible.
I don’t want you to suffer Elaine, but as long as you cling to these views, you will.
Let me fix that for you.
The very idea of being ‘born in the wrong body’ is only meaningful if you believe human beings have a spirit that exists independently of and outside the boundaries of our physical existence.
In other words, the concept of gender identity is not derived from reality, science or rationalism, but from a spiritual conviction. Accepting the reality of gender identity is a tenet of faith, and should be regarded in the same way as any other tenet of faith in any other belief system.
Gender identity ideology is a church, a theology, which – like any other recognised theology – people should be free to practise or not, to agree with or not, to believe in or not.
What it should not be is the basis for the law, because that way theocracy lies.
So they want their female brains transferred into a female body? This is all nonsense. “Feelings” of being male or female are totally subjective. There is no “right” way to feel that makes you a man or a woman.
Believing that you are in the wrong body is only a delusion if you believe that your anatomy determines absolutely who you are.
Jan Morris describes it this way :
“…that my conundrum might simply be a matter of p***s or vagina, testicle or womb, seems to me still a contradiction in terms, for it concerned not my apparatus, but my self”
‘This doesn’t preclude having a conversation but accepting that you can never walk in someone elses moccasins has to be a given’
Exactly. And that is why a trans-woman can never BE a woman, but only what, as a male-bodied person, that person imagines a woman to be.
And imagines a woman to feel.
And imagines a woman to feel.
Actually, no. Whatever Jan Morris wrote it is not a “fully rounded out description of what it is like being ‘trans'”. It is and can only be a ‘fully rounded out’ (not sure what that might mean) description of what is is like to be Jan Morris.
If I were to write my own autobiography, it would not be a description of what it is like to be a heterosexual male. In fact, I have no idea of as to what the category ‘heterosexual male’ might think or feel (how does a category do either?). It would only be a description of what I feel and how I think, and part of that feeling would be shaped and influenced by the fact that I am, indeed a heterosexual male. Perhaps I am a good and average representative of my category memberships. Perhaps not. But it would be a grievous error indeed if people were to read my own story and believe I speak for all 3.7B males….or the estimated 3.589B heterosexual males….or even the 150M heterosexual males who are American.
As for ‘broadening perspectives’….or empathizing & accepting… don’t we all (don’t most adults?) completely understand that people are different, each from the other? Don’t we already understand that people think differently, and desire differently, and live differently? But the uniqueness of any given individual (as different from each other as snowflakes) does not preclude any of us from, already, having a certain capacity for empathy & compassion with regard to the shared condition of being human.
In truth, though, that capacity is limited. I can sympathize with and understand ‘unrequited love’ as a for instance, or plain old human desire…but I have no empathy with or compassion for pedophiles even though they probably feel both. Truthfully I have only disgust (perhaps that sounds cruel).
I can understand what it feels like to be different (doesn’t everyone?) but to feel mis-gendered is incomprehensible. We are our embodied selves. We are not the ‘ghost’ in the machine somehow being magically and wrongly placed in someone else’s body. Certainly we can feel compassion for those so distressed, but acceptance? Yes, we can accept the fact that some people suffer from various forms of gender dysphoria…but acceptance meaning to embrace or endorse the delusion (to help Bill/Betty feel comfortable in their psychological disorder) is impossible. It’s also — as we’ve seen — socially & culturally unworkable.
I can believe myself a zebra, but it would be insane if the law began to force you to provide a bale of hay and a nice stall for me when I travel. Instead I’d be told that I can believe myself to be whatever — it doesn’t matter. There only ever is a problem if I begin — in the midst of my delusion — to work to compel people to honor that delusion.
But what if one had a child who was convinced they were in the wrong gender body. What a nightmare and a test of unconditional parental love.
But what if one had a child who was convinced they were in the wrong gender body. What a nightmare and a test of unconditional parental love.
It isn’t my description. It’s the Buddhas’. You’re welcome to disagree with him if you wish.
And evoking standpoint epistemology (your moccasins comment) is an attempt to control the speech of others. It is not for you to decide what others speak of. So it isn’t a given. It’s controlling behaviour.
‘Has anyone here bothered to read Jan Morris’s autobigraphy Conundrum ?’
I have. The one thing I took away from it above all others was how thoroughly it side-lined Morris’s wife, who remained a faithful wife, mother, hand servant and general dogsbody throughout Morris’s long and thoroughly narcissistic existence.
But then, like a lot of things, it’s never really been about women, has it?
Elaine, I have read Conundrum and found it highly illuminating.
After reading it, it struck me that no one who wakes up in the morning without any doubt about their gender can possibly place themselves in the position of the Jan Morris’s of this world. Just as Jan would never have been able to understand that certainty.
That sense that neither can empathize nor really understand each other, is why the journey has always been about self-diagnosis and all that a psychologist can do is look for warning signs of any other attendant issues and its those other issues that can and need addressing.
That is precisely why reassigning gender should not be undertaken with children and should not be made easier for adults.
That is quite separate from whether transvestites should use women’s spaces, they should not.
“… I had been born into the wrong body and should really be a girl ”
This is notion of “throne-ness” – that an inner sexed soul-identity has been thrown into reality and imprisoned within a bodying.
Using the ideology of qu–r marxism a special critical consciousness is achieved – a gnosis, that reality of the body and the exterior world is understood to be false or wrong, a prison, which can be changed to match the true, inner self, thus setting it free.
This is a delusion. The question is how such a delusion is to be treated – as care in the community or with professional help, or both.
The problem comes, as I see it, with the 1st option because any attempt to demand or coerce people affirm such a delusion is is to have them lie about what they perceive as reality.
‘This doesn’t preclude having a conversation but accepting that you can never walk in someone elses moccasins has to be a given’
Exactly. And that is why a trans-woman can never BE a woman, but only what, as a male-bodied person, that person imagines a woman to be.
Actually, no. Whatever Jan Morris wrote it is not a “fully rounded out description of what it is like being ‘trans'”. It is and can only be a ‘fully rounded out’ (not sure what that might mean) description of what is is like to be Jan Morris.
If I were to write my own autobiography, it would not be a description of what it is like to be a heterosexual male. In fact, I have no idea of as to what the category ‘heterosexual male’ might think or feel (how does a category do either?). It would only be a description of what I feel and how I think, and part of that feeling would be shaped and influenced by the fact that I am, indeed a heterosexual male. Perhaps I am a good and average representative of my category memberships. Perhaps not. But it would be a grievous error indeed if people were to read my own story and believe I speak for all 3.7B males….or the estimated 3.589B heterosexual males….or even the 150M heterosexual males who are American.
As for ‘broadening perspectives’….or empathizing & accepting… don’t we all (don’t most adults?) completely understand that people are different, each from the other? Don’t we already understand that people think differently, and desire differently, and live differently? But the uniqueness of any given individual (as different from each other as snowflakes) does not preclude any of us from, already, having a certain capacity for empathy & compassion with regard to the shared condition of being human.
In truth, though, that capacity is limited. I can sympathize with and understand ‘unrequited love’ as a for instance, or plain old human desire…but I have no empathy with or compassion for pedophiles even though they probably feel both. Truthfully I have only disgust (perhaps that sounds cruel).
I can understand what it feels like to be different (doesn’t everyone?) but to feel mis-gendered is incomprehensible. We are our embodied selves. We are not the ‘ghost’ in the machine somehow being magically and wrongly placed in someone else’s body. Certainly we can feel compassion for those so distressed, but acceptance? Yes, we can accept the fact that some people suffer from various forms of gender dysphoria…but acceptance meaning to embrace or endorse the delusion (to help Bill/Betty feel comfortable in their psychological disorder) is impossible. It’s also — as we’ve seen — socially & culturally unworkable.
I can believe myself a zebra, but it would be insane if the law began to force you to provide a bale of hay and a nice stall for me when I travel. Instead I’d be told that I can believe myself to be whatever — it doesn’t matter. There only ever is a problem if I begin — in the midst of my delusion — to work to compel people to honor that delusion.
Has anyone here bothered to read Jan Morris’s autobigraphy Conundrum ?
The first sentence reads :
“I was three or perhaps four years old when I realised that I had been born into the wrong body and should really be a girl ”
She then goes on to describe, every which way, what it was like for her psychologically, physically, socially, emotionally, sexually living this almost ectopic existence until she went through surgery at the age of 46 and then her experiences afterwards as a newly minted woman.
As she describes, after the surgery “I was made, by my own light, normal.”
Personally, I found some of the prose both self serving and saccharine but as a fully rounded out description of what it is like being “trans” (however you want to define that term) I think that it would be hard to beat. Highly recommended for those who are curious and open.
I think it is a shame that there aren’t more first person trans narratives of this quality available in order to broaden perspectives and shine a torch on preconceived notions.
As for compassion, I too, don’t subscribe to N Foster’s view of what this emotion encompasses. For me, it is the ability to empathise and accept. This doesn’t preclude having a conversation but accepting that you can never walk in someone elses moccasins has to be a given.
As for equanimity I use that word in relation to not getting hot under the collar about things I can’t change. This may or may not include some form of suffering.