Dora Moutot > Judith Butler (Eric Fougere/Corbis via Getty Images)
A bit like Napoleon, radical transactivism is moving swiftly and imperviously across Europe. Blithe to the consequences for women, lesbians, and gay men, pan-European LGBT organisations such as ILGA Europe are lobbying hard for governments to introduce self-ID, and also to outlaw so-called “conversion therapy” — in other words, talking therapies — for dysphoric people planning to cut off their body parts.
So far, it seems to be working. ILGA is well-funded and has great influence, both with national governments and in the EU. Belgium brought in self-ID in 2018. Spain did so in February this year, as did Finland. Undeterred by the fiasco of Nicola Sturgeon putting male rapists in female prisons in the name of inclusivity, Germany and the Netherlands are teetering on the brink.
In France, meanwhile, a very French version of this culture war is playing out. On the side of those insisting that biological differences matter socially and politically is feminist Dora Moutot, who is facing a lawsuit from transactivists for accurately describing a transwoman as a “trans-identified male” on TV last year. In the past few months, Moutot has launched the “Femelliste” website with fellow feminist Marguerite Stern, aimed at explaining to a mostly uncomprehending French public some of the main problems caused by transactivism, as they see it.
Also on Moutot’s side is Catholic commentator Eugénie Bastié, signatory to a public letter in support of Moutot, and author of a recently published book-length essay entitled Sauver La Différence Des Sexes (Save Sex Differences). Moutot is a social media influencer and a former writer for Vice magazine. She also runs a website dedicated to increasing the number of female orgasms in the world. On the face of it, then, she is a strange bedfellow with a conservative like Bastié. Such is the extremity of transactivism, however, almost everyone who isn’t chronically underinformed or under 25 ends up on the other side of it eventually.
According to The Times, Bastié argues in her new book that — thanks to a legacy of biology-denial, whether under the guise of feminism or transactivism — “women struggle to combine a career and childcare, and men, shorn of role models and their ancestral identity, become sad porn addicts”. Sticking to a well-established script, her opponents on the progressive Left have fought back this week with an equally broad brush. Writing in Libération, philosopher Camille Froidevaux-Metterie insists that Bastié is wrong: allowing that men can become women is a laudable extension of the project of changing patriarchal social norms.
Although what we have here is a dynamic simultaneously playing out across a number of Western stages — that is, a provisional and uneasy alliance among those who think there are limits to human bodily plasticity, against those who think there are none — there are also some unmistakably French elements in the mix. One is the unfeasible glamour of everyone involved. Another is the sheer aggression with which Parisian transactivists are currently pursuing Moutot and Stern, throwing ugly death threats all over the place in classically hyperemotional Gallic style.
The final national giveaway is the desire to blame the Anglosphere for all of it. Bastié, according to The Times, thinks she knows the culprit for the parlous social predicament of the sexes: “the arrival in France of British and American theories involving a ‘totalitarian’ cancel culture and the negation of biological realities”.
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.
Subscribe‘Arguably, they are up to their chic black polonecks in the matter.’
This is why I love reading Kathleen Stock. Long may she continue!
Along with ” . . they look so bloody beguiling that nobody can see straight.”
Oh there’s so much of it in here. I liked, “Uncritically spouting half-baked French ideas may still work for English-speaking academics as a shorthand for the possession of intellectual depth, but it’s unlikely to do the same for native thinkers.” She must have had some specific people in mind here, perhaps from Sussex. Brilliant.
I was heartened to hear Dora Moutot say “trans identified men”. The trans woman thing is so confusing, I keep having to stop and think what it really means, as if the whole thing isn’t challenging enough.
That is how they’ve done it… so many people still think transwomen are a variety of woman. They’re a variety of MEN!!! Language capture (ref 1984) preceded societal capture.
Indeed. Chicks with dicks or men with (fake) breasts?
Indeed. Chicks with dicks or men with (fake) breasts?
That is how they’ve done it… so many people still think transwomen are a variety of woman. They’re a variety of MEN!!! Language capture (ref 1984) preceded societal capture.
It’s delightfully written. One catches in the west the loss of western philosophical realism.. Aristotle and Aquinas.
“Final Causation” – the intelligible end or purpose of everything.. BEING.. the ground of all finite being including us. The European Catholic scholastic philosophy we adopted and developed from Socrates and the Greek philosophical tradition.
With naive materialism we are utterly unintelligible and as realist philosopher Dennis Bonnette shows, Descartes , when he promoted self consciousness as the ground of experience, forgot about the real world things of which he was conscious. Reality.
Thank God for Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and the possibility of sanity. Philosopher Peter Kreeft may be the best philosopher alive and one of he best ever. Wonderful Marriage Between Faith and Reason, Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. – YouTube
Along with ” . . they look so bloody beguiling that nobody can see straight.”
Oh there’s so much of it in here. I liked, “Uncritically spouting half-baked French ideas may still work for English-speaking academics as a shorthand for the possession of intellectual depth, but it’s unlikely to do the same for native thinkers.” She must have had some specific people in mind here, perhaps from Sussex. Brilliant.
I was heartened to hear Dora Moutot say “trans identified men”. The trans woman thing is so confusing, I keep having to stop and think what it really means, as if the whole thing isn’t challenging enough.
It’s delightfully written. One catches in the west the loss of western philosophical realism.. Aristotle and Aquinas.
“Final Causation” – the intelligible end or purpose of everything.. BEING.. the ground of all finite being including us. The European Catholic scholastic philosophy we adopted and developed from Socrates and the Greek philosophical tradition.
With naive materialism we are utterly unintelligible and as realist philosopher Dennis Bonnette shows, Descartes , when he promoted self consciousness as the ground of experience, forgot about the real world things of which he was conscious. Reality.
Thank God for Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and the possibility of sanity. Philosopher Peter Kreeft may be the best philosopher alive and one of he best ever. Wonderful Marriage Between Faith and Reason, Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. – YouTube
‘Arguably, they are up to their chic black polonecks in the matter.’
This is why I love reading Kathleen Stock. Long may she continue!
Years ago I visited France several times and learned how proud the French are of their culture and how the term “Anglo Saxon” was almost an insult.
Of course they should resist the trans agenda for the sheer nonsense that it is, but those opposing the trans activists would be wise to characterize it as an Anglo Saxon innovation. That will stiffen French spines.
tbh I don’t like the term “Anglo-Saxon” as I don’t live in the 9th century. It’s also used for “English-Speaking” which is clearly incorrect.
You may not like it, but it’s universally used in France to denote English culture and the English speaking world. They understand its meaning perfectly well which is what really matters when it comes to language.
In some circles, the use of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ terms in spoken and written French is frowned upon in much the same way.
You may not like it, but it’s universally used in France to denote English culture and the English speaking world. They understand its meaning perfectly well which is what really matters when it comes to language.
In some circles, the use of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ terms in spoken and written French is frowned upon in much the same way.
tbh I don’t like the term “Anglo-Saxon” as I don’t live in the 9th century. It’s also used for “English-Speaking” which is clearly incorrect.
Years ago I visited France several times and learned how proud the French are of their culture and how the term “Anglo Saxon” was almost an insult.
Of course they should resist the trans agenda for the sheer nonsense that it is, but those opposing the trans activists would be wise to characterize it as an Anglo Saxon innovation. That will stiffen French spines.
I am curious to know, how “trans” got hold of the idea that gender differences are just social constructs.
I wonder if they simply picked up the baton and ran with it.
Moral: Don’t leave batons laying about.
This is how feminism laid the seeds for its own destruction.
If only that were true for French philosophy. They should stick to getting laid and seeding.
The trouble as they were all on the gender is a social construct model until they were hoist by their own petard.
We can expect the same in relation to the controlling and coercive behaviour legislation… but it was only intended to apply to men
Gender IS a social construct. It doesn’t even exist, much the same as ghosts and the soul. Biological sex isn’t a social construct. The only use of “gender” that makes any sense is as a synonym for biological sex. I suppose an argument could be made for using terms like “gendered behaviour”, but frankly I’d give those a miss too, as its expressions like that that got us into this mess in the first place.
Exactly. ‘Gender’ only exists in linguistics and, in some languages (including French), is applied to inanimate objects.
Prudes, particularly in America, have used it as a synonym for sex, and that is where the confusion lies.
The French are not prudes! It would be interesting to know, however, how the mindset of a totally gendered language affects their perception of this issue.
I am old enough to remember when gender was a grammatical term and people engaged in “sex-role behaviours”.
Exactly. How would they manage the pronoun thingy with a masculine and feminine language. And for those learning french, yikes!
Exactly my thought in any language that assigns feminine and masculine properties to unanimate objects. Let alone the ones that have other genders. I suspect that ultimately, it all comes down to language specifically the English one.
It all comes down to philosophy and the presence or absence of rational thoughts. Aristotle vs mindless matter in meaningless motion and its faithful adherents.
Faith and reason are meant to walk together.
It all comes down to philosophy and the presence or absence of rational thoughts. Aristotle vs mindless matter in meaningless motion and its faithful adherents.
Faith and reason are meant to walk together.
Exactly my thought in any language that assigns feminine and masculine properties to unanimate objects. Let alone the ones that have other genders. I suspect that ultimately, it all comes down to language specifically the English one.
In using the gender in language she is still feminine and he is still masculine.
As a native German speaker with a language that has three genders insted of only two like the French, I tell you the gender wars in Germany are fiercely faught on linguistic grounds. It’s a complete farce.
It’s been my observation that among German youth the slang word “da” is starting to replace the gendered der, das, die.
It’s been my observation that among German youth the slang word “da” is starting to replace the gendered der, das, die.
Yes. I have been mumbling and stumbling towards that for a while, but never quite got there. It’s crystal clear when you arrive.
I am old enough to remember when gender was a grammatical term and people engaged in “sex-role behaviours”.
Exactly. How would they manage the pronoun thingy with a masculine and feminine language. And for those learning french, yikes!
In using the gender in language she is still feminine and he is still masculine.
As a native German speaker with a language that has three genders insted of only two like the French, I tell you the gender wars in Germany are fiercely faught on linguistic grounds. It’s a complete farce.
Yes. I have been mumbling and stumbling towards that for a while, but never quite got there. It’s crystal clear when you arrive.
I always thought gender was the same as biological sex. It never was a social construct before. Why are they changing our language?
The change occurred when the gender was identified with sex between 1974 and 1980
The change occurred when the gender was identified with sex between 1974 and 1980
oh, I think the soul exists.
It most certainly does. But its not a “thing” like a sense object “inside” us.. the crude and frankly ignorant notion most carry but rather, like form and matter potency and act, Aristotle’s sane worldview as delivered by Thomas Aquinas, these are two metaphysical principles necessary to explain reality
Descartes forgot about them to our universal peril.
We have arrived near the bottom of insanity.
Aristotle and Aquinas are the pathway back to sanity.
Reality
The Transcendental Certitude of Metaphysical First Principles : Strange Notions
It most certainly does. But its not a “thing” like a sense object “inside” us.. the crude and frankly ignorant notion most carry but rather, like form and matter potency and act, Aristotle’s sane worldview as delivered by Thomas Aquinas, these are two metaphysical principles necessary to explain reality
Descartes forgot about them to our universal peril.
We have arrived near the bottom of insanity.
Aristotle and Aquinas are the pathway back to sanity.
Reality
The Transcendental Certitude of Metaphysical First Principles : Strange Notions
Gender isn’t actually a social construct. There are gender roles and gendered behaviour and it is a manifesttaion of biology. They have seen it in rat/mice studies where they have given females doses of testosterone (and vice versa) and the females abandon their babies and start humping everything that moves. Their agression goes through the roof (something women transitioning into ‘men’ have found and are now speaking out about) and they exhibit what is typical male behaviour. If you tested top women executives you would probably find that their testosternone levels are way too high. Same with violent female offenders and the like. The notion that there aren’t biology based male and female behavoirs is a nonsense.
And here’s an interesting example. If you work with young children, you’ll soon learn that little boys cry far more frequently than little girls. I’ve no idea why. Little girls gossip and form alliances that ruthlessly ostracize other girls. Little boys will sock one another and be besties later on that day. These are gendered behaviors which almost certainly reflect evolutionary adaptations to differences in how males and females most successfully navigated their literal and social struggles in our ancient past.
What is your meaning of “gender” in your comment?
And here’s an interesting example. If you work with young children, you’ll soon learn that little boys cry far more frequently than little girls. I’ve no idea why. Little girls gossip and form alliances that ruthlessly ostracize other girls. Little boys will sock one another and be besties later on that day. These are gendered behaviors which almost certainly reflect evolutionary adaptations to differences in how males and females most successfully navigated their literal and social struggles in our ancient past.
What is your meaning of “gender” in your comment?
Semantics
You know what they meant
As Aristotle showed, the soul obviously exists. What doesn’t exist is your notion of what the soul is. That indeed doesn’t exist. Ensoulment… or again from Aristotle.. “animation” – we forget that anima means soul… refers to living things. Things that have immanent action… they are the source and purpose of their actions unlike a rock of postmodern philosophy text.
Aristotle is the way home to sanity.. Final Causation.. the end or purpose of things. Even God sanely understood.
And the human soul is seen properly as incorporeal.. indeed the act of the body.. the form of the matter.. (as in our word from Aquinas, “information”) because we all live and experience free will and our mind deals with non material things like justice, beauty and the number 3.
Beauty is indeed a function of purpose and so the beauty of the most beautiful creation.,, ,woman, who us guys are literally dying to love and serve. In healthy folks anyway..
Aristotle vs Kant and his insanity which too many “value”.
Peter Kreeft is a wonderful realist philosopher and knows his Aristotle and the disasters of Hume , Kant and others very well.
https://www.wordonfire.org/videos/the-great-debates-of-philosophy/aristotle-vs-kant-on-epistemology-and-ethics/
Exactly. ‘Gender’ only exists in linguistics and, in some languages (including French), is applied to inanimate objects.
Prudes, particularly in America, have used it as a synonym for sex, and that is where the confusion lies.
The French are not prudes! It would be interesting to know, however, how the mindset of a totally gendered language affects their perception of this issue.
I always thought gender was the same as biological sex. It never was a social construct before. Why are they changing our language?
oh, I think the soul exists.
Gender isn’t actually a social construct. There are gender roles and gendered behaviour and it is a manifesttaion of biology. They have seen it in rat/mice studies where they have given females doses of testosterone (and vice versa) and the females abandon their babies and start humping everything that moves. Their agression goes through the roof (something women transitioning into ‘men’ have found and are now speaking out about) and they exhibit what is typical male behaviour. If you tested top women executives you would probably find that their testosternone levels are way too high. Same with violent female offenders and the like. The notion that there aren’t biology based male and female behavoirs is a nonsense.
Semantics
You know what they meant
As Aristotle showed, the soul obviously exists. What doesn’t exist is your notion of what the soul is. That indeed doesn’t exist. Ensoulment… or again from Aristotle.. “animation” – we forget that anima means soul… refers to living things. Things that have immanent action… they are the source and purpose of their actions unlike a rock of postmodern philosophy text.
Aristotle is the way home to sanity.. Final Causation.. the end or purpose of things. Even God sanely understood.
And the human soul is seen properly as incorporeal.. indeed the act of the body.. the form of the matter.. (as in our word from Aquinas, “information”) because we all live and experience free will and our mind deals with non material things like justice, beauty and the number 3.
Beauty is indeed a function of purpose and so the beauty of the most beautiful creation.,, ,woman, who us guys are literally dying to love and serve. In healthy folks anyway..
Aristotle vs Kant and his insanity which too many “value”.
Peter Kreeft is a wonderful realist philosopher and knows his Aristotle and the disasters of Hume , Kant and others very well.
https://www.wordonfire.org/videos/the-great-debates-of-philosophy/aristotle-vs-kant-on-epistemology-and-ethics/
Was it? Are there laws that discriminate on sex?
Gender IS a social construct. It doesn’t even exist, much the same as ghosts and the soul. Biological sex isn’t a social construct. The only use of “gender” that makes any sense is as a synonym for biological sex. I suppose an argument could be made for using terms like “gendered behaviour”, but frankly I’d give those a miss too, as its expressions like that that got us into this mess in the first place.
Was it? Are there laws that discriminate on sex?
Quite, starting with Second Wave Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir, then Betty Freidan in the 1990’s.
The present lunacy is the the inevitable outcome.
.
Absolute nonsense. Second wave feminists recognise the reality of biological sex whilst rejecting the oppressive social constructs of domesticity and femininity. We loathe gender ideology. It is against everything we believe in.
There is barely a hair’s breadth, however, between believing that women should simper and wear dresses and believing that everyone who simpers and wears dresses is a woman. Both are rooted firmly in misogyny.
“There is barely a hair’s breadth, however, between believing that women should simper and wear dresses and believing that everyone who simpers and wears dresses is a woman.”
Brilliant summation!
Exactly!!
I read that, and immediately thought of Little Britain’s Emily, thr cr*p transvestite, and her catchphrase “I’m a lady!” Who would have thought that life would end up imitating art to that extent?
Exactly!!
I read that, and immediately thought of Little Britain’s Emily, thr cr*p transvestite, and her catchphrase “I’m a lady!” Who would have thought that life would end up imitating art to that extent?
It is sexual, emotional and aesthetic attractiveness and sexual, emotional and aesthetic attraction!
Misogyny, misandry and misanthropy are their antitheses.
How do you define femininity?
Since I agree with Caroline I’ll take this one; femininity describes the culturally defined trappings that are imposed upon the female sex; for example to the Maasai it is a neck elongated by metal rings. To Europeans, a hairless body and unblemished skin. To many Africans; a dainty vaginal opening free of labial lips. All 3 examples are direct challenges to biological sex, ironically, requiring body modifications
Since I agree with Caroline I’ll take this one; femininity describes the culturally defined trappings that are imposed upon the female sex; for example to the Maasai it is a neck elongated by metal rings. To Europeans, a hairless body and unblemished skin. To many Africans; a dainty vaginal opening free of labial lips. All 3 examples are direct challenges to biological sex, ironically, requiring body modifications
The nonsense is yours. De Beauvoir developed the term “gender” specifically to separate our actual and interdependent roles in life from reality. Men and women are only intelligible in the context of their interactive roles in life itself.
“Ms.” pretends we are somehow intelligible outside of our very natures which are ordered to the real.
Ideological insanity is the result and what we are dealing with today. We live in a philosophical wasteland.
Peter Kreeft 10 Lies of Contemporary Culture.
https://youtu.be/K7FtUlnIXd0
“Ms” allows women to go through life without their marital status front and center in EVERY domain, the may men can with Mr. there was NO attempt in using Ms to erase women. Ms says we are not defined by marriage or virginity
Most here are too young to understand the deep importance marital status had in the way women were treated in every aspect of life. Ms was an extraordinary win for us.
“Ms” allows women to go through life without their marital status front and center in EVERY domain, the may men can with Mr. there was NO attempt in using Ms to erase women. Ms says we are not defined by marriage or virginity
Most here are too young to understand the deep importance marital status had in the way women were treated in every aspect of life. Ms was an extraordinary win for us.
“There is barely a hair’s breadth, however, between believing that women should simper and wear dresses and believing that everyone who simpers and wears dresses is a woman.”
Brilliant summation!
It is sexual, emotional and aesthetic attractiveness and sexual, emotional and aesthetic attraction!
Misogyny, misandry and misanthropy are their antitheses.
How do you define femininity?
The nonsense is yours. De Beauvoir developed the term “gender” specifically to separate our actual and interdependent roles in life from reality. Men and women are only intelligible in the context of their interactive roles in life itself.
“Ms.” pretends we are somehow intelligible outside of our very natures which are ordered to the real.
Ideological insanity is the result and what we are dealing with today. We live in a philosophical wasteland.
Peter Kreeft 10 Lies of Contemporary Culture.
https://youtu.be/K7FtUlnIXd0
Absolute nonsense. Second wave feminists recognise the reality of biological sex whilst rejecting the oppressive social constructs of domesticity and femininity. We loathe gender ideology. It is against everything we believe in.
There is barely a hair’s breadth, however, between believing that women should simper and wear dresses and believing that everyone who simpers and wears dresses is a woman. Both are rooted firmly in misogyny.
If only that were true for French philosophy. They should stick to getting laid and seeding.
The trouble as they were all on the gender is a social construct model until they were hoist by their own petard.
We can expect the same in relation to the controlling and coercive behaviour legislation… but it was only intended to apply to men
Quite, starting with Second Wave Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir, then Betty Freidan in the 1990’s.
The present lunacy is the the inevitable outcome.
.
Leading to a typically French version of the relay, no doubt, involving a male-identifying male, female-identifying female, male-identifying female and female-identifying male; all of them experiencing orgasms as they pass the baton.
can a female identifying male on hormones still have orgasms?
It may occur spontaneously in a women-only space?
Emission via admission.
The mind boggles and the imagination has taken off.
It may occur spontaneously in a women-only space?
Emission via admission.
The mind boggles and the imagination has taken off.
can a female identifying male on hormones still have orgasms?
2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, in the new Testament explains it all. Worth the read.
There is no more basic truth than male and female, regardless of what someone says. It is how our species reproduces. This licentiousness has happened before and it will pass. Corinth and ancient Rome come to mind.
Is it the begining of the end of civilization along with climate change? Seems a fitting end.
I believe a lot of the climate change narrative is also a social construct.
I believe a lot of the climate change narrative is also a social construct.
x
Is it the begining of the end of civilization along with climate change? Seems a fitting end.
x
But gender is a social construct – it’s sex that isn’t. The confusion between the meaning of gender and sex is partly how we got here. It’s only ever used in a human context either as a euphemism for the term ‘sex’, with which some people are uncomfortable, or when referring to sociocultural matters as in ‘the gender pay gap’. If you think about it, we never use the term ‘gender’ when referring to animals!
I do wonder how this gender revolution is going to hit the French (with apologies for the term, “the French”, which someone suggested a couple of weeks ago was xenophobic).
Whatever are they going to do about, for example, a table that want to self-identify as masculine?
If a tree falls over in the forest and no-one hears, was it male, or female?
How are they going to handle New York’s hundred-and-seventy-odd genders, when they only have masculine, feminine and neuter?
Exactly.
Le plume de mon tante est sur le table.
They don’t have neuter. That’s the Germans. But if France was American, they’d have students demanding the right to use either le or la to qualify any noun, depending on mood, whim, or laziness. There’s an element of intellectual laziness in all of the marshmallow concepts being sold to the youth of the Anglosphere.
Exactly.
Le plume de mon tante est sur le table.
They don’t have neuter. That’s the Germans. But if France was American, they’d have students demanding the right to use either le or la to qualify any noun, depending on mood, whim, or laziness. There’s an element of intellectual laziness in all of the marshmallow concepts being sold to the youth of the Anglosphere.
I wrote almost the same thing above before I saw this.
I recall many years ago the first time I came across someone ignorantly using the word ‘gender’ instead of sex. It was in the transcript of an equality lecture given by a Harvard professor (I believe it might have been Rosabeth Moss Kanter, but apologise to her if it was not) to a group of US CEOs.
The story I heard was that the professor had correctly used the term ‘sex’, but that her secretary had substituted every use of it for the word ‘gender’. When asked why, she is purported to have said that she just imagined that all these men (CEO’s of the US’s biggest corporations) would snigger at the use of the word, so substituted it. Apparently the Professor left it thus.
Yet men are the ones that were accused of stereotyping!
.
Both terms mean the same to me and to most of the people I know.
Then I assume neither you nor they have ever studied another language. One of the first things taught in French lessons is that gender and sex are not necessarily the same.
Of course, most people in Britain suffer several years of French lessons in school, and remain utterly untouched by the language.
Then I assume neither you nor they have ever studied another language. One of the first things taught in French lessons is that gender and sex are not necessarily the same.
Of course, most people in Britain suffer several years of French lessons in school, and remain utterly untouched by the language.
Both terms mean the same to me and to most of the people I know.
Yes! Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct, meaning the roles men and woman typically take in any society.
But this ‘social construct’ idea, eg as defined by you, still leaves us in confusion. What, then, are the categories of gender (aside from the purely linguistic ones of masculine, feminine, neuter and common which are outside this discussion)? They come back down, it seems to me, to the sex-based division of male and female! You talk about ‘the roles men and women ….take’ as defining gender: so we are back to biological sex again! Gender, divorced from biological sex, becomes an empty concept. If we go back to your ‘roles’ definition, if a man, say, looks after a baby, does he have a different gender? If so, how would you name it? Gender, as I understand it and in its non-linguistic sense, began as a euphemism for sex, and has morphed into an amorphous monster!
But this ‘social construct’ idea, eg as defined by you, still leaves us in confusion. What, then, are the categories of gender (aside from the purely linguistic ones of masculine, feminine, neuter and common which are outside this discussion)? They come back down, it seems to me, to the sex-based division of male and female! You talk about ‘the roles men and women ….take’ as defining gender: so we are back to biological sex again! Gender, divorced from biological sex, becomes an empty concept. If we go back to your ‘roles’ definition, if a man, say, looks after a baby, does he have a different gender? If so, how would you name it? Gender, as I understand it and in its non-linguistic sense, began as a euphemism for sex, and has morphed into an amorphous monster!
Good point.
You got to one meaning of “gender” – as a euphemism for sex (perhaps synonym?) but didn’t arrive at a second meaning of “gender” in sociocultural matters as in your example of the “gender pay gap”.
I do wonder how this gender revolution is going to hit the French (with apologies for the term, “the French”, which someone suggested a couple of weeks ago was xenophobic).
Whatever are they going to do about, for example, a table that want to self-identify as masculine?
If a tree falls over in the forest and no-one hears, was it male, or female?
How are they going to handle New York’s hundred-and-seventy-odd genders, when they only have masculine, feminine and neuter?
I wrote almost the same thing above before I saw this.
I recall many years ago the first time I came across someone ignorantly using the word ‘gender’ instead of sex. It was in the transcript of an equality lecture given by a Harvard professor (I believe it might have been Rosabeth Moss Kanter, but apologise to her if it was not) to a group of US CEOs.
The story I heard was that the professor had correctly used the term ‘sex’, but that her secretary had substituted every use of it for the word ‘gender’. When asked why, she is purported to have said that she just imagined that all these men (CEO’s of the US’s biggest corporations) would snigger at the use of the word, so substituted it. Apparently the Professor left it thus.
Yet men are the ones that were accused of stereotyping!
.
Yes! Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct, meaning the roles men and woman typically take in any society.
Good point.
You got to one meaning of “gender” – as a euphemism for sex (perhaps synonym?) but didn’t arrive at a second meaning of “gender” in sociocultural matters as in your example of the “gender pay gap”.
‘Gender’ is a wholly social construct and, therefore, ‘gender differences’ are social constructs. I think the word that you are looking for is sex. All mammalian species are sexually dimorphic. The difference between males and females is entirely for reproductive purposes.
The question to ask is, ‘Do other mammals do this?’
If the answer is ‘yes’, it is inherent and related to biological sex and reproduction. If the answer is ‘no, only humans’, then it is a social construct.
Do other mammals do what?
Do other mammals do what?
Neo Marxist shill and unhappy alcoholic feminist Simone de Beauvoir invented the idea of “gender” , adopting the “Ms.” identifier of common experience. Most don’t stop to think that this actually means that somehow one can understand what the two sexes are without referencing their dare I say intimate relatedness in life itself.
Add the Marxist “social construction” ideology and support for even things like sodomizing one another … and we have voila.. the modern world. Postmodernism adds the final dash of insanity and purposelessness.
Not to end in despair, check out philosopher Peter Kreeft. Aristotle and Aquinas.. abandoned for reasons of expediency not sanity… are the way back and the way forward. Hume and Kant left us adrift in nonsense. Aristotle to the rescue.. father of western realism.
https://www.wordonfire.org/videos/the-great-debates-of-philosophy/aristotle-vs-kant-on-epistemology-and-ethics/
It’s also interesting that race is now considered a social construct. Nobody denies there are different breeds of horses, dogs, and pigs. But acknowledging sub species of humans is not allowed.
This is how feminism laid the seeds for its own destruction.
Leading to a typically French version of the relay, no doubt, involving a male-identifying male, female-identifying female, male-identifying female and female-identifying male; all of them experiencing orgasms as they pass the baton.
2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, in the new Testament explains it all. Worth the read.
There is no more basic truth than male and female, regardless of what someone says. It is how our species reproduces. This licentiousness has happened before and it will pass. Corinth and ancient Rome come to mind.
But gender is a social construct – it’s sex that isn’t. The confusion between the meaning of gender and sex is partly how we got here. It’s only ever used in a human context either as a euphemism for the term ‘sex’, with which some people are uncomfortable, or when referring to sociocultural matters as in ‘the gender pay gap’. If you think about it, we never use the term ‘gender’ when referring to animals!
‘Gender’ is a wholly social construct and, therefore, ‘gender differences’ are social constructs. I think the word that you are looking for is sex. All mammalian species are sexually dimorphic. The difference between males and females is entirely for reproductive purposes.
The question to ask is, ‘Do other mammals do this?’
If the answer is ‘yes’, it is inherent and related to biological sex and reproduction. If the answer is ‘no, only humans’, then it is a social construct.
Neo Marxist shill and unhappy alcoholic feminist Simone de Beauvoir invented the idea of “gender” , adopting the “Ms.” identifier of common experience. Most don’t stop to think that this actually means that somehow one can understand what the two sexes are without referencing their dare I say intimate relatedness in life itself.
Add the Marxist “social construction” ideology and support for even things like sodomizing one another … and we have voila.. the modern world. Postmodernism adds the final dash of insanity and purposelessness.
Not to end in despair, check out philosopher Peter Kreeft. Aristotle and Aquinas.. abandoned for reasons of expediency not sanity… are the way back and the way forward. Hume and Kant left us adrift in nonsense. Aristotle to the rescue.. father of western realism.
https://www.wordonfire.org/videos/the-great-debates-of-philosophy/aristotle-vs-kant-on-epistemology-and-ethics/
It’s also interesting that race is now considered a social construct. Nobody denies there are different breeds of horses, dogs, and pigs. But acknowledging sub species of humans is not allowed.
I am curious to know, how “trans” got hold of the idea that gender differences are just social constructs.
I wonder if they simply picked up the baton and ran with it.
Moral: Don’t leave batons laying about.
Am I in the majority or minority for embracing the thought that trans advocates are a noisy grouping with mental and possibly physical abnormalities who contribute zilch to Society and should be kept out of the way for their own protection.
Am I in the majority or minority for embracing the thought that trans advocates are a noisy grouping with mental and possibly physical abnormalities who contribute zilch to Society and should be kept out of the way for their own protection.
Trust the author to stick it to the French. Certainly in terms of philosophy, she comes from fine Anglo-Saxon stock.
I wonder, are there signs of a denouement for trans activism? Whilst the movement required its philosophical basis, there seems to be emerging a philosophical basis by which its emergence can be readily understood, and therefore will presage its falling away from avant guardisme. It’s burning with too bright a flame to maintain the prominence it currently occupies in the social and political sphere.
Whilst it’s fine for adults consenting with themselves (i’ll let the French work that one out) to have their body parts guillotined, child disfigurement and encroachment on women-only spaces are starting to prove a barricade too far.
IF only Jimmy Savil had known about Trans activism, I’m sure he could have got away with his version of abuse for even longer, the BBC would have been even more supine.
” now then, now then”!!!
‘Ow’s about that then?
‘Ow’s about that then?
” now then, now then”!!!
The author isn’t “sticking it to the French” at all. From this article I’d say she is quite fond of the French.
There’s a significant difference between admiring certain aspects of the way they present themselves to the world, in a visual sense, and their cultural/intellectual heritage.
It appears you’re unable to detect la difference between the two.
Exactly.
There’s a significant difference between admiring certain aspects of the way they present themselves to the world, in a visual sense, and their cultural/intellectual heritage.
It appears you’re unable to detect la difference between the two.
Exactly.
IF only Jimmy Savil had known about Trans activism, I’m sure he could have got away with his version of abuse for even longer, the BBC would have been even more supine.
The author isn’t “sticking it to the French” at all. From this article I’d say she is quite fond of the French.
Trust the author to stick it to the French. Certainly in terms of philosophy, she comes from fine Anglo-Saxon stock.
I wonder, are there signs of a denouement for trans activism? Whilst the movement required its philosophical basis, there seems to be emerging a philosophical basis by which its emergence can be readily understood, and therefore will presage its falling away from avant guardisme. It’s burning with too bright a flame to maintain the prominence it currently occupies in the social and political sphere.
Whilst it’s fine for adults consenting with themselves (i’ll let the French work that one out) to have their body parts guillotined, child disfigurement and encroachment on women-only spaces are starting to prove a barricade too far.
Merci Madame Stock!
Your clear and truthful argument has two issues I would like to clarify. One concerns Finland (home for me). We have been spearheading the woke movement in EU for years. We have an absolutely unequal socialist government run by inexperienced and incompetent “young” women occuping all major ministries (note! I have nothing against women in leadership, neither in politics nor in business, but I abhore quotas. I’m just bitter;)). Boys are struggling to cope with an education system rigged for girls in the name of “equality” for half a human life-time. Yet, there is light at the end of the tunnel! The non-gender-identifying social security ID did not happen! Eventually the centre to right political parties did come to their senses, just in time, as they realized that elections were approaching. It seems now, that we will have a radically different set of ministers by the end of spring. The nightmare is over!
The other thing that caught my eye, was your mention of Trans “religiousity”. If you mean their fervour and fanatism, I agree completely. It’s just that the way it’s expressed, leaves an uncomfortably nauseating fear, that there is some disturbed faction of Trans activists who claim affiliation to a religion proper? I suppose that would be quite far fetched, so guess I’m just misunderstanding…again.
I think Stock when referring to trans ‘religiosity’ is indeed referring to their fervor and fanaticism. However at least in the US there are many protestant preachers who wear rainbow vestments and claim that either or both Jesus Christ and God are transgender and autistic.
Congratulations on your government course correcting, I wish mine would.
What do the trans, woke (and feminist) ideologues in Finland say about conscripting only male citizens into the armed forces? That question will not easily be ignored in view not only of egalitarianism but also of transgenderism.
My field is comparative religion, and I think that all of these political ideologies, whether on the Left or the Right (to the extent that either label remains adequate), are “secular religions.” What puts them on the religious grid is not merely that they appeal to emotion, which all ways of life must do, but that they rely on a specific way of thinking. These ideologies are really secular forms of fundamentalism. For example, all have borrowed heavily from the dualistic philosophies (or gnostic religions) that originated in central Asia and began to spread throughout the Mediterranean world (including Judaism and eventually Christianity) approximately 2,500 years ago.
First and foremost, dualism is an “us” vs. “them” mentality. But it goes beyond that, because both “we” and “they” are identified in turn with good or evil.
In the trans context, consider the enduring dichotomy between flesh and spirit, body and mind, nature and culture (or “nurture”), which goes back much further than Descartes. The most extreme example in our time is surely the trans notion of some “essence” (or soul) that can somehow find itself in the “wrong” body.
I see it in such a way that one can meaningfully consider transideology as a religious phenomenon, because it is a thought construction that rests on some dogmas that cannot be doubted, that are counterfactual and antiscientific and inaccessible to facts and arguments.
If supporters respond to criticism at all, it is with dogmatic clichés or derogatory terms.
One works in a missionary way and follows a ‘either you are with us or you are against us’ logic – critics of the dogmas ‘are heretics’ – ‘untouchables’. (by the way, this is something generally left-wing).
You work towards an imagined ideal state, which will become possible by radically changing the way you live, act and think – a Paradise on Earth – an apocalypse.
I believe that the linear (as opposed to the more common circular in religions) apocalyptic shows that, just like with communism, we are talking about perverted Judaism and Christianity.
I know what you mean. Did wonder about that. It would be interesting if god were brought into it. Would that be a gender or a sex issue? Can’t wait for the religious to wade in!! What a can of worms! Putin said god is a man and most religions think that, which a big part of men feeling superior (if god is a man all men must be gods) and misogyny.
Transgender ideology runs counter to G*d’s plan. It is rooted in self-love and therefore a form of idolatry. Not sure what Putin and misogyny have to do with it, except that trans-ideology hurts both sexes.
Self love?? It is rooted in self hate!
Self love?? It is rooted in self hate!
Transgender ideology runs counter to G*d’s plan. It is rooted in self-love and therefore a form of idolatry. Not sure what Putin and misogyny have to do with it, except that trans-ideology hurts both sexes.
I think Stock when referring to trans ‘religiosity’ is indeed referring to their fervor and fanaticism. However at least in the US there are many protestant preachers who wear rainbow vestments and claim that either or both Jesus Christ and God are transgender and autistic.
Congratulations on your government course correcting, I wish mine would.
What do the trans, woke (and feminist) ideologues in Finland say about conscripting only male citizens into the armed forces? That question will not easily be ignored in view not only of egalitarianism but also of transgenderism.
My field is comparative religion, and I think that all of these political ideologies, whether on the Left or the Right (to the extent that either label remains adequate), are “secular religions.” What puts them on the religious grid is not merely that they appeal to emotion, which all ways of life must do, but that they rely on a specific way of thinking. These ideologies are really secular forms of fundamentalism. For example, all have borrowed heavily from the dualistic philosophies (or gnostic religions) that originated in central Asia and began to spread throughout the Mediterranean world (including Judaism and eventually Christianity) approximately 2,500 years ago.
First and foremost, dualism is an “us” vs. “them” mentality. But it goes beyond that, because both “we” and “they” are identified in turn with good or evil.
In the trans context, consider the enduring dichotomy between flesh and spirit, body and mind, nature and culture (or “nurture”), which goes back much further than Descartes. The most extreme example in our time is surely the trans notion of some “essence” (or soul) that can somehow find itself in the “wrong” body.
I see it in such a way that one can meaningfully consider transideology as a religious phenomenon, because it is a thought construction that rests on some dogmas that cannot be doubted, that are counterfactual and antiscientific and inaccessible to facts and arguments.
If supporters respond to criticism at all, it is with dogmatic clichés or derogatory terms.
One works in a missionary way and follows a ‘either you are with us or you are against us’ logic – critics of the dogmas ‘are heretics’ – ‘untouchables’. (by the way, this is something generally left-wing).
You work towards an imagined ideal state, which will become possible by radically changing the way you live, act and think – a Paradise on Earth – an apocalypse.
I believe that the linear (as opposed to the more common circular in religions) apocalyptic shows that, just like with communism, we are talking about perverted Judaism and Christianity.
I know what you mean. Did wonder about that. It would be interesting if god were brought into it. Would that be a gender or a sex issue? Can’t wait for the religious to wade in!! What a can of worms! Putin said god is a man and most religions think that, which a big part of men feeling superior (if god is a man all men must be gods) and misogyny.
Merci Madame Stock!
Your clear and truthful argument has two issues I would like to clarify. One concerns Finland (home for me). We have been spearheading the woke movement in EU for years. We have an absolutely unequal socialist government run by inexperienced and incompetent “young” women occuping all major ministries (note! I have nothing against women in leadership, neither in politics nor in business, but I abhore quotas. I’m just bitter;)). Boys are struggling to cope with an education system rigged for girls in the name of “equality” for half a human life-time. Yet, there is light at the end of the tunnel! The non-gender-identifying social security ID did not happen! Eventually the centre to right political parties did come to their senses, just in time, as they realized that elections were approaching. It seems now, that we will have a radically different set of ministers by the end of spring. The nightmare is over!
The other thing that caught my eye, was your mention of Trans “religiousity”. If you mean their fervour and fanatism, I agree completely. It’s just that the way it’s expressed, leaves an uncomfortably nauseating fear, that there is some disturbed faction of Trans activists who claim affiliation to a religion proper? I suppose that would be quite far fetched, so guess I’m just misunderstanding…again.
As a left-wing, strongly gender-critical male who’s been following the trans nonsense for several years now, I find Kathleen Stock’s article to be excellent, as usual. She obviously knows Foucault, Sartre and Co. much better than I do.
However, as a left-wing, strongly gender-critical male who’s been living in, and observing, France for many years now (I’m British in origin), I have to object to what I see as a very superficial, media-inspired overview along the lines of “but France is so different.” This is reflected in the frankly silly headline, “Is France too sexy…”
Remember: for years pretty well all Westerners from outside France assumed that the country was not only “sexy” but also the world capital of fine eating. Today France is, unless I’m mistaken, the number-one European market for McDonald’s, with Burger King, KFC etc. following up fast behind. I was deeply shocked a few years back when, getting off a plane from New York at Charles de Gaulle, the very first thing I saw as I emerged from the terminal corridor was a McDonald’s.
No, I don’t believe that France will be any more resistant to the trans nonsense than anywhere else. The basic reason is the media, as I believe it is elsewhere. Watching TV and reading the papers, I see that the good old fashioned word “sexe”, in the sense of women/men, has almost everywhere been replaced by the perfidious “genre”. And the entire media now assume, without having felt the slightest need to explain themselves, that anything to do with homosexuality must necessarily be referred to as “LGBT”, with various additional letters tacked on, followed by a “+” sign, if the writer wants to sound even more virtuous.
So yes, it’s interesting to look at French philosophy, but that’s really not the main story in my view. The main story is neoliberal propaganda, which is currently being forced down the throats of the French thanks to the Macron régime.
To sum up, I think we need less focus on abstract concepts, and a closer, more critical eye on the media. After all, to adapt the witty title of a recent book, “Most people round here don’t read Proust.”
Yes, we need to critique mass media. In Australia the national broadcaster, the ABC, has been “captured”. During the recent Pride festival in Sydney ABC programmes were awash with pride propaganda.
It is exactly the abstract and mostly meaningless blind abstract concepts that are exactly our problem as our world dies.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft. He may be the most intelligent person alive.
Wonderful Marriage Between Faith and Reason, Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. – YouTube
Yes, we need to critique mass media. In Australia the national broadcaster, the ABC, has been “captured”. During the recent Pride festival in Sydney ABC programmes were awash with pride propaganda.
It is exactly the abstract and mostly meaningless blind abstract concepts that are exactly our problem as our world dies.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft. He may be the most intelligent person alive.
Wonderful Marriage Between Faith and Reason, Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. – YouTube
As a left-wing, strongly gender-critical male who’s been following the trans nonsense for several years now, I find Kathleen Stock’s article to be excellent, as usual. She obviously knows Foucault, Sartre and Co. much better than I do.
However, as a left-wing, strongly gender-critical male who’s been living in, and observing, France for many years now (I’m British in origin), I have to object to what I see as a very superficial, media-inspired overview along the lines of “but France is so different.” This is reflected in the frankly silly headline, “Is France too sexy…”
Remember: for years pretty well all Westerners from outside France assumed that the country was not only “sexy” but also the world capital of fine eating. Today France is, unless I’m mistaken, the number-one European market for McDonald’s, with Burger King, KFC etc. following up fast behind. I was deeply shocked a few years back when, getting off a plane from New York at Charles de Gaulle, the very first thing I saw as I emerged from the terminal corridor was a McDonald’s.
No, I don’t believe that France will be any more resistant to the trans nonsense than anywhere else. The basic reason is the media, as I believe it is elsewhere. Watching TV and reading the papers, I see that the good old fashioned word “sexe”, in the sense of women/men, has almost everywhere been replaced by the perfidious “genre”. And the entire media now assume, without having felt the slightest need to explain themselves, that anything to do with homosexuality must necessarily be referred to as “LGBT”, with various additional letters tacked on, followed by a “+” sign, if the writer wants to sound even more virtuous.
So yes, it’s interesting to look at French philosophy, but that’s really not the main story in my view. The main story is neoliberal propaganda, which is currently being forced down the throats of the French thanks to the Macron régime.
To sum up, I think we need less focus on abstract concepts, and a closer, more critical eye on the media. After all, to adapt the witty title of a recent book, “Most people round here don’t read Proust.”
“Another is the sheer aggression with which Parisian transactivists are currently pursuing Moutot and Stern, throwing ugly death threats all over the place in classically hyperemotional Gallic style.”
Not just Parisians. It seems like the entire global movement is being forced down our throats. And yet conservatives are accused of being anti Democratic?
“Another is the sheer aggression with which Parisian transactivists are currently pursuing Moutot and Stern, throwing ugly death threats all over the place in classically hyperemotional Gallic style.”
Not just Parisians. It seems like the entire global movement is being forced down our throats. And yet conservatives are accused of being anti Democratic?
As I am following this very closely in France where I live I’d like to add that the equalities minister mentioned by Stock was removed from her post after disbanding the council and this was a move done with Macron’s approval. Brigitte Macron has publicly objected to the use of the ‘ilelle’ non binary pronoun (‘they’) though it is gaining some traction.
I could discuss at length the response to MeToo but suffice it to say that these women were objecting to the obstruction of desire by fear. Desire does or did circulate easily in France. Men AND women love to flirt, all the time. It just adds to the enjoyment of life.
There is resistance elswhere in Europe too. For those of you who have enough Spanish take a look at this indictment of the impact of trans activism on a young homosexual man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APzil6oSvc
As I am following this very closely in France where I live I’d like to add that the equalities minister mentioned by Stock was removed from her post after disbanding the council and this was a move done with Macron’s approval. Brigitte Macron has publicly objected to the use of the ‘ilelle’ non binary pronoun (‘they’) though it is gaining some traction.
I could discuss at length the response to MeToo but suffice it to say that these women were objecting to the obstruction of desire by fear. Desire does or did circulate easily in France. Men AND women love to flirt, all the time. It just adds to the enjoyment of life.
There is resistance elswhere in Europe too. For those of you who have enough Spanish take a look at this indictment of the impact of trans activism on a young homosexual man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APzil6oSvc
One can only hope!
One can only hope!
I hope you are right. Many of your readers without doctorates in philosophy or fluent French will be dependent on you to keep us informed on how the debates progress.
‘Such is the extremity of transactivism, however, almost everyone who isn’t chronically underinformed or under 25 ends up on the other side of it eventually.’
Hurrah for information and ageing.
‘Such is the extremity of transactivism, however, almost everyone who isn’t chronically underinformed or under 25 ends up on the other side of it eventually.’
Hurrah for information and ageing.
I hope you are right. Many of your readers without doctorates in philosophy or fluent French will be dependent on you to keep us informed on how the debates progress.
I’m certain La Belle France will soon sort out this Trans nonsense!
In my lifetime I have seen Frenchman cease to urinate on the side of the road at every possible opportunity, women to shave their armpits and actually have a bath/shower rather than dowse themselves in perfume, so they are ‘adaptable’.
Incidentally, and slightly off piste, they have been excellent in enforcing draconian punishment for the perpetrators of FGM.
My only regret is they have abandoned the services of ‘Mademoiselle de la Guillotine’. She is sorely missed. R.I.P.
Given the new Emperor’s ability to do what he wants, I suspect the efforts to convince by both sides, need to be aimed at him.
Maybe trans will only shave one armpit?
Funny!
Funny!
Given the new Emperor’s ability to do what he wants, I suspect the efforts to convince by both sides, need to be aimed at him.
Maybe trans will only shave one armpit?
I’m certain La Belle France will soon sort out this Trans nonsense!
In my lifetime I have seen Frenchman cease to urinate on the side of the road at every possible opportunity, women to shave their armpits and actually have a bath/shower rather than dowse themselves in perfume, so they are ‘adaptable’.
Incidentally, and slightly off piste, they have been excellent in enforcing draconian punishment for the perpetrators of FGM.
My only regret is they have abandoned the services of ‘Mademoiselle de la Guillotine’. She is sorely missed. R.I.P.
Good grief you write well.This sums up so much of what is happening. ‘British and US versions of transactivism involve grim alliances between radicals and petty bureaucrats. The former just want to move fast and break things, removing boundaries wherever they find them, mostly for the sake of it. The latter, in contrast, like making up new rules and telling people what to do.’
Brilliant.
Could not agree more. Those few sentences from Ms, Stock can indeed describe a huge portion of all the absolute craziness that is happening. We can only hope that Steve Murray’s comment about it burning itself out will eventually come true.
Could not agree more. Those few sentences from Ms, Stock can indeed describe a huge portion of all the absolute craziness that is happening. We can only hope that Steve Murray’s comment about it burning itself out will eventually come true.
Good grief you write well.This sums up so much of what is happening. ‘British and US versions of transactivism involve grim alliances between radicals and petty bureaucrats. The former just want to move fast and break things, removing boundaries wherever they find them, mostly for the sake of it. The latter, in contrast, like making up new rules and telling people what to do.’
Brilliant.
I’m so glad I bought a subscription to this magazine. Top tier content, all the time. 🙂
Exactly, they’re always original thinkers.
Exactly, they’re always original thinkers.
I’m so glad I bought a subscription to this magazine. Top tier content, all the time. 🙂
I remember an Italian girlfriend being outraged at the pastiche of Italian architecture represented by Portmeirion. So I would expect that the French should be equally outraged at being foisted off with the witterings of French philosophers adapted in the US for the peculiarities of that country and then broadcast back as a pastiche version. The French have always been more averse to hints of the US version of Anglo-Saxon cultural hegemony.
I remember an Italian girlfriend being outraged at the pastiche of Italian architecture represented by Portmeirion. So I would expect that the French should be equally outraged at being foisted off with the witterings of French philosophers adapted in the US for the peculiarities of that country and then broadcast back as a pastiche version. The French have always been more averse to hints of the US version of Anglo-Saxon cultural hegemony.
Ob$erve the money flow; transgender didn’t exist until big Pharma created a product in need of customers. Just watch 1976 East German women swim team winning piles of gold medals! Marketing 101: first create a product; second manufacture customers, i.e. inform them of a deficiency previously unbeknownst to them; step three, $ell them a $olution. Big Pharma, laughing all the way to the bank, says: “Ka Ching$$$!!!!” Work$ like magic! Call it equity, diversity & inclusion! Hate has no home here!
Another example being the new obesity drug Ozemic…
Another example being the new obesity drug Ozemic…
Ob$erve the money flow; transgender didn’t exist until big Pharma created a product in need of customers. Just watch 1976 East German women swim team winning piles of gold medals! Marketing 101: first create a product; second manufacture customers, i.e. inform them of a deficiency previously unbeknownst to them; step three, $ell them a $olution. Big Pharma, laughing all the way to the bank, says: “Ka Ching$$$!!!!” Work$ like magic! Call it equity, diversity & inclusion! Hate has no home here!
judging from my recent visit to the Dordogne, it was difficult to distinguish the males from the females! The place should be re-named ” The Gorgogne”…
judging from my recent visit to the Dordogne, it was difficult to distinguish the males from the females! The place should be re-named ” The Gorgogne”…
I come back to the words of that celebrated trans-sexual, Jan Morris, in her book ‘Conundrum’ (ch. 12). “Nobody in the history of human kind has changed from a true man to a true woman…”. And she (they?) should know!
I come back to the words of that celebrated trans-sexual, Jan Morris, in her book ‘Conundrum’ (ch. 12). “Nobody in the history of human kind has changed from a true man to a true woman…”. And she (they?) should know!
Self-ID exists in Belgium since 2017, but what happens to “gender” on ID cards?M?F?X? Nothing? That issue is still unresolved. It could have serious implications. For instance a “trans” man identified as M on her ID card, but having kept her female genitalia will no longer have access to reimbursement for gynaecological health care (yes I’m a TERF for using female pronouns…). And quite rightly so IMO.You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Self-ID exists in Belgium since 2017, but what happens to “gender” on ID cards?M?F?X? Nothing? That issue is still unresolved. It could have serious implications. For instance a “trans” man identified as M on her ID card, but having kept her female genitalia will no longer have access to reimbursement for gynaecological health care (yes I’m a TERF for using female pronouns…). And quite rightly so IMO.You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Brilliant writing and thinking, Kathleen. Your contributions to this magazine are much appreciated.
Brilliant writing and thinking, Kathleen. Your contributions to this magazine are much appreciated.
ROFL at the image of Monsieur Le Maire en femme crooning ‘She’ into the cheval mirror. “She…. may be the beauty or the beast….”
ROFL at the image of Monsieur Le Maire en femme crooning ‘She’ into the cheval mirror. “She…. may be the beauty or the beast….”
Should have said “a pathetic trans-identified man”
Should have said “a pathetic trans-identified man”
With the victim train, at some point everyone wants to get off. With feminists, it seems to occur after “biological” men appear in the girls’ bathroom. No kidding!
With the victim train, at some point everyone wants to get off. With feminists, it seems to occur after “biological” men appear in the girls’ bathroom. No kidding!
Dua Lipa, Dora Moutot – I think Dr Stock and I share the same taste in women.
Dua Lipa, Dora Moutot – I think Dr Stock and I share the same taste in women.
Save sex differences? It is evident that they do not need to be saved but are apparent to anyone who has sense. If you can keep out of the ballyhoo you are wise and are able to speak sense in the matter if given the opportunity.
Save sex differences? It is evident that they do not need to be saved but are apparent to anyone who has sense. If you can keep out of the ballyhoo you are wise and are able to speak sense in the matter if given the opportunity.
I disagree with this blaming of the French.
Look at this article which gives a much more interesting perspective on how the French were misunderstood by Anglo-Saxon intellectuals.
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/03/reconstructing-derrida-poetics-nonsense-rule-cool/
Another very readable piece from Stock. Although … “classically hyperemotional Gallic style” … I thought only Leave voters were prone to engage in xenophobic stereotyping of foreigners.
You should hear how the Dutch and Belgians often speak about eac other then the Brits and the Irish do the same as do the Swedes and Norwegians The Irish also have Limerick Boys to fall back on. The distaff in every Nordic country will tell you how chaste they are while all the other Nordic women are “not so chaste.”
Ah, yes. Those nasty xenophobic ‘others’. Thank goodness we are always so tolerant and inclusive.
.
You should hear how the Dutch and Belgians often speak about eac other then the Brits and the Irish do the same as do the Swedes and Norwegians The Irish also have Limerick Boys to fall back on. The distaff in every Nordic country will tell you how chaste they are while all the other Nordic women are “not so chaste.”
Ah, yes. Those nasty xenophobic ‘others’. Thank goodness we are always so tolerant and inclusive.
.
Another very readable piece from Stock. Although … “classically hyperemotional Gallic style” … I thought only Leave voters were prone to engage in xenophobic stereotyping of foreigners.
A corrosive bit of patronizing hate in here.Hyper conservative premise set againts “oh no they re radicals” No acounting for his arguing against facts on the ground just im right capital R . Slippery and hateful.
Pardonne moi?
The good fellow seems to have had too much good (or bad) wine. Utterly incoherent.
A correction is in order… If you wish to say “excuse me?” in French, it’s “pardon?”. If you wish to say “forgive me”, it’s “pardonne moi” (single/familiar) and “pardonnez moi” ((group/formal). That being corrected, I agree to the comment by CD being gibberish (charabia!).
The good fellow seems to have had too much good (or bad) wine. Utterly incoherent.
A correction is in order… If you wish to say “excuse me?” in French, it’s “pardon?”. If you wish to say “forgive me”, it’s “pardonne moi” (single/familiar) and “pardonnez moi” ((group/formal). That being corrected, I agree to the comment by CD being gibberish (charabia!).
Pardonne moi?
A corrosive bit of patronizing hate in here.Hyper conservative premise set againts “oh no they re radicals” No acounting for his arguing against facts on the ground just im right capital R . Slippery and hateful.