This shouldn’t even have to be said. Yet, making a simple statement of truth, of reality, of fact is a radical and dangerous act in a society that has thrown not just common sense but any semblance of sanity out the window; defenestrated that is.
Apparently, the substitution of the word “sex” with the vague word “gender” was the hobbyhorse of John Money back in the 1950s. Money was the corrupt sexologist who is most notorious for utterly ruining the life of David Reimer by talking his parents into raising David as a girl after a botched circumcision left him without a penis. Money drooled at the chance to experiment on little David because David happened to have an identical twin brother who could serve as a control for Money’s little inquest. In the 1970s, feminists took off with Money’s new lexicon, and we’ve been sloppily repeating the word “gender” ever since.
“Gender” doesn’t mean anything concrete when applied to human identity because “gender identity” is all about a state of mind that’s not rooted in any objective reality. Sex, on the other hand, is quite definitely rooted in physical reality. Yet when “sex” makes an appearance in “gender identity non-discrimination laws,” it is masked as something that doesn’t exist in reality. A standard definition of “gender” is that it means someone’s perception of self (as male, female, both, or neither) “whether or not it aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.” Part of the premise of transgender law is to get you to believe that your sex was erroneously—and even maliciously—“assigned” to you at birth.
Jurisdiction after jurisdiction has signed on to that canard. It forces onto us a fraudulent premise that denies the reality of our own physical bodies.
I remember reading about the case of David (nee Brenda) Reimer and how utterly shocked I was to see the way this boy was treated by both his doctor as well as the Canadian medical community.
FYI – David Reimer committed suicide in May 2004 following years of severe depression brought on by his condition. SMH…
Regards,
Peter H.
This whole concept sounds nutty to me. In fact, it makes me laugh. I can picture a male believing he is a woman and showering in a women’s dressing room and a woman is also showering. He has an erection and he tells the woman, Iit’s not what you think it is. It’s my clítoris.”
“GENDER” IS AN ASPECT OF LANGUAGE, NOT BIOLOGY.
“Gender” is an integral-aspect of language, not of biology nor chromosomes.
“Gender” is the new smoke screen to make conservative look bad and to make liberals feel good about themselves. It is make believe.
Gender pronouns: he she it. English doesn’t have gender nouns per se, but many Romance languages do: French le vin rouge, Spanish el vino tinto, Welsh y gwin coch. English hides such distinctions but we do assign ‘gender’ to such things as ships, airplanes, cars – mostly female…
Objective facts are now heresies (wasn’t that the term in Planet of the Apes when scientific inquiry pushed the limits of permissible thought?).
I ran across a tweet thread today from Scientific American that said “The differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences” (with link to article which I’ve not read).
https://twitter.com/sciam/status/737259943380844544
The responses to the tweet are disturbing: the idea that intelligence has a hereditary component is perilously close to forced eugenics, racism, Nazi-ism.
Apparently, the correct belief is that all humans, regardless of background, have the capability to, say, be theoretical physicists if only the right environment is provided.
So everything from sexual orientation to hair color is, to some extent, heritable but intelligence cannot possibly he inherited in any way. No, never, no way.
Putting objective reality up for debate doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
@ KCRob: Unfortunately, that’s part of the Left’s M.O. nowadays. It’s not enough that the “bad” guys’ methods were wrong, their starting premise must be proven to be completely false as well, as well as any idea that is related to their starting premise, otherwise people will be too stupid to realize that just because a premise is right does not mean the conclusion is right.
There are feminists who deny that hormones are actually a thing, because opponents of women’s suffrage argued that women shouldn’t be given the vote because they are too emotional. And hormones, whether we like it or not, do have an influence on people, men and women alike. So , if you acknowledged that opponents of women’s suffrage were slightly correct (not in the way they thought, but you get the idea), and that hormones can and do influence emotions, you must agree with their conclusion that women must therefore be denied the right to vote.
Same thing with human genetics and Nazism. Nazis espoused that “Aryans” different from other humans, and were indeed superior to other humans, and thus had the right to dominate, enslave, and exterminate lesser humans. The Nazi doctrine of race supremacy is built upon the idea that different groups of humans are different, and that some groups of humans are better at some things than other groups because of broad genetic differences. And this is true- to an extent. Tibetans have a gene that better allows them to survive in low oxygen environments- in that sense, they are superior at living in mountainous regions than other humans are. Africans produce more melanin, which reduces chance of skin cancer- in that case, they are superior at living in areas with intense sun exposure than other humans are. And, since the brain is an organ that governs thinking and cognitive skills, and organs are made up of specialized cells that are created based on DNA, then it’s not absurd to say that intelligence has some genetic component- not saying that it is totally dependent on genetics, but at least somewhat. But if you acknowledge that there are genetic differences between different human groups, the Left acts like you’re about to call for the extermination of the untermenschen.
The only thing I have to add is that the David Reimer case is frequently cited by doctors treating “Intersex” children (i.e., those born with structural abnormalities of the external genitals and/or malfunctioning gonads) as a reason for NOT RUSHING into hormonal or surgical “correction” of the Intersex condition. In other words, using the syringe or the scalpel to make Intersex kids “more normal” ought to be done LATER, rather than SOONER — in order to avoid unintended disasters like the Reimer case.
Yet this is the exact opposite of the “puberty blockers” approach that some trans activists have favored for children with gender-identity issues.
In related matters, what are people’s thoughts on the statement that “you can’t know if you’re really gay until you’re in your 20s.” Personally I think it’s bull- a straight kid’s first romantic endeavors in high school are indulged and taken seriously, but a kid who has homosexual inclinations is just going through a phase?
Sean.. In 4th grade my buds were looking at Ms. Lambert’s chest in her tight sweaters. I was looking at Mr. Edwards chest in his tight dress shirts. I knew.
Christian rock star Trey Pearson has come out as gay after years struggling to reconcile his faith with his sexuality.
Pearson has been part of the band Everyday Sunday for the past 15 years. Everyday Sunday has experienced phenomenal success on the Christian rock scene.
In an interview with Columbus, Ohio’s (614) Magazine, Pearson (35) reveals how he fought against his sexuality for years:
“I grew up in a very conservative Christian home where I was taught that my sexual orientation was a matter of choice, and had put all my faith into that. I had never before admitted to myself that I was gay, let alone to anyone else. I never wanted to be gay. I was scared of what God would think and what all of these people I loved would think about me; so it never was an option for me. I have been suppressing these attractions and feelings since adolescence. I’ve tried my whole life to be straight. I married a girl, and I even have two beautiful little kids. My daughter, Liv, is six and my son, Beckham, is two.”
@ tnnsne1: I had a similar experience. I hear many “traditionalists” who insist that no child or teenager can know they are homosexual. If that’s the mentality of even half of those who oppose the Gay Left, then I’m less befuddled as to how the Gay Left keeps winning.
It’s probably right up there with a fair amount of those who oppose the Gay Left, which is precisely why they keep winning. That’s a very prescient observation, Sean L.
Of course we are a country which tends to live in extremes and in a mostly-black/mostly-white reality. As such, there can be only mandatory sex education starting in preschool or else no sex education except pamphlets you are permitted to read at age 21 or older by appointment with a licensed medical doctor and then only to learn reproduction. Likewise “transsexualism is a mental disorder” or “transgender kids should be started on hormone therapy as soon as possible.” That there can be a multitude of proper approaches in between is a concept that seems to be foreign to each side.
I keep asking on here why gender is substituted for sex when discussing post or pre-op trans.
Why is it that you hear about the struggle for self-acceptance with homosexuality coming more from Christian/Muslim backgrounds verses say upbringings that aren’t as tightly bound in religion?
*scratching head*
Actually, Cinesnatch, you hear it more from those who have a very limited “Christian” background, especially if they come from posh places like Chappaqua and Beverly Hills, where such self-expression is kept under wraps until election time.
As for Muslims, well, there isn’t any problem with self-acceptance. They merely throw them off a roof or topple a wall on them – as you well know and, as always, seem to accept without prejudice.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Keep scratching that head cinesnatch, you might find something.
“Why is it that you hear about the struggle for self-acceptance with homosexuality coming more from Christian/Muslim backgrounds verses say upbringings that aren’t as tightly bound in religion?”
Simple.. it fits the narrative. Just like homophobia in the Black community isn’t heard, it doesn’t fit the narrative.
“Jurisdiction after jurisdiction has signed on to that canard. It forces onto us a fraudulent premise that denies the reality of our own physical bodies.”
Less than 2% of the population into perpetuity that manifest delusions and neurotic behavior/associated paraphilias is not forcing the majority normal heterosexual population to do anything, with or without the force of government.