We have been discussing the ongoing controversies — and prosecutions — over what are called Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs). The term is used for feminists who have voiced opposition to transgender policies and laws that they believe “erase” or “marginalize” biological women. The most famous such figure is author J.K. Rowling who has not only been the subject of a global cancel campaign but was recently listed by Buzzfeed with figures like cult leader Jim Jones, Benedict Arnold and O.J. Simpson as “villains.” Now, Joan of Arc is a flashpoint in the debate after Kit Heyam, lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, called for the use of “they/them” pronouns and declared that Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth should not be viewed as females but “gender nonconformists.” That has led feminists and others to object that Heyam and others are actually advancing gender stereotypes of women.
In an essay, Heyam discusses the new play, “I, Joan,” which “tells Joan of Arc’s story anew” as “alive, queer, and full of hope,.” Heyman notes how both historical figures performed tasks ordinarily reserved to men.
“The ninth-century English ruler Æthelflæd, who governed Mercia after the death of their husband, was later described as ‘conducting…Armies, as if she had changed her sex’: to take on a male-coded military role was, in some sense, for Æthelflæd to become male.
Elizabeth I, similarly, described themself regularly in speeches as ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘prince’, choosing strategically to emphasize their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points…”
I must confess that I take the emphasis on clothing and conduct to be a tad superficial as evidence of gender nonconformity as opposed to women who refused to be confined by social convention. For example, the fact that Elizabeth referred to herself as “prince” on occasion is consistent with the nomenclature of the time. Today it would be similar to a female fire fighter referring to herself as a “fireman” out of convention. Likewise, while she was known as the “Virgin Queen” and died without marrying or producing children, she had a variety of lovers and love interests. There were a myriad of reasons making marriage complex and risky for Elizabeth I.
Heyam’s position would seem to suggest that these figures should not be considered women because they dared to engage in activities reserved to men.
Feminist philosopher Jane Clare Jones objected that Heyam’s position suggests that
“anyone who does ‘manly’ things must be a man, and anyone who does ‘womanly’ things must be a woman…This is how we end up in a situation in which historical women who have performed traditionally ‘masculine’ roles end up being re-categorised as ‘trans men’ or ‘non-binary’ or ‘not-women’ in some way.”
I actually thought Heyam’s article was most interesting in explaining the importance of these figures to the trans community. Heyam identifies as a “non-binary trans person” and wrote:
“When I hear Joan say, from 1431, ‘It was necessary’, I hear echoes of myself years ago, asking to be called they rather than she, telling people, ‘I don’t know why, but it’s what makes me happy.’ This doesn’t mean I can describe the real Joan as a trans person in the same way I am: it wouldn’t be fair to them, wouldn’t show them the respect they deserve, if I were to impose upon them my own way of seeing the world. But their story is nonetheless important to me, as it is to many other people of all genders, as a source of historical community; as a story which reminds us that our selves can be messy and our decisions multifaceted; and as a story of someone who insisted on disrupting and challenging gender, and remained so committed to this challenge that they were prepared to die for it. This history is powerfully liberating for all of us.”
That is a poignant and fascinating perspective. It could not justify, in my mind, treating these figures as nonconforming with they/them pronouns, but it show how these historical figures can resonate with people like Heyam in their own lives.
I only wish that feminists like Rowling and others can be afforded greater civility and tolerance in expressing their own views in this area. These are all valuable perspective and make for a rich and interesting debate. Unfortunately, while Heyam is legitimately welcomed in sharing her theories on these figures, it is increasingly difficult for writers like Rowling to appear on campuses to share their own countervailing views.
I never consented to replacing biological categories with subjective “gender identity” categories, not was there anything like a large-scale public debate about doing this. It is something that was imposed on us by an activist minority.
TERF’s are ladies with principles.
A few years ago, the Left redefined sex and gender, and then gaslit people who remembered what the words actually meant.
I have in my hands the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, copyright 2016. Just six years ago.
Sex: n 1. either of the two major forms that occur in many living things and are designated male or female according to their role in reproduction, also, the qualities by which these sexes are differentiated and which directly indirectly function in reproduction involving two parents.
Gender: n SEX 1
Sex and gender were synonyms. Interchangeable. Male or female.
The Left has simply declared the definition of woman has become indefinable, that gender is simply an internal feeling, and that sex used to be biological, but is now indefinable, as well.
Today, the same dictionary’s online website defines the terms as follows:
Sex: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Woman: 1a : an adult female person
b : a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination
Female: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male
The Left redefined sex and gender as behavioral and psychological, because they could not win an argument with anyone with a rudimentary familiarity with a dictionary. You cannot change your sex or gender, because you cannot become the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young, or produce sperm, and you cannot change an XY chromosome to XX. All you can change is your behavior, clothing, manner of speaking, and if you’re really determined, you can take hormones, hormone blockers, or have surgery. This merely approximates the appearance, the mimicry, of the opposite sex. You cannot actually change your sex, which is synonymous with gender, no matter how the Left desperately tries to redefine the terms. A transgender is quite literally a mimic.
The Left created a paradox. If sex is the behavioral characteristics of a male and female, and gender is the behavioral traits typically associated with one sex, and female is now not definable…then gender has become a collection of stereotypes. Women typically are feminine. Men are typically masculine. If a biological female dresses like a man and likes to work on cars, she is exhibiting the behavior “typically associated” with males. That would define her as having the gender of a male. Thus, male and female has been reduced to stereotypes. Tomboys are now transgender.
This is gaslighting. I will not participate. Thus, I define male, female, man, woman, gender, and sex, according to the ancient traditions and science as of 2016, in the long, long ago time of 6 years ago.
Has anyone else noticed that of all the neuroses listed in the Psychiatric DSM that homosexuality and transgenderism are two of an extremely small set of neuroses that are affirmed rather than treated psychologically?
As a French man, I can assure you that the French are very happy to have a female heroine in their history. Nobody in their own mind would think of Joanne as a trans person.
For male war heros, among others we have Duguesclin, a bit earlier.
The curious may enjoy reading JoA history here: https://www.jeanne-darc.info/biography/
She is the only figure in history ever to be BOTH condemned AND canonized by the Catholic Church.
I’m sure Turley will smile at this one:
“The details of the life of Jeanne d’Arc form a biography which is unique among the world’s biographies in one respect: it is the only story of a human life which comes to us under oath, the only one which comes to us from the witness-stand”
Gus,
Thank you for your post and insight as a French man.
And I smiled.
merci beaucoup!
(I hope I got that right)
If transgender is good because of Joan of Arc, what about all the bad ones?
My point, It is meaningless. Take any group you want to define, and it will be filled with the same spectrum of people, as exist in the population as a whole.
The way the leftist in this country force racial and sexist crap on us, it’s kind of reminiscent of the nazis in the 1930’s and 40’s.
I will never take anyone who calls one person “themself” or “they” seriously.
This is such utter BS. Joan of Arc and Elizabeth I were women, period. Heyam may find some notoriety in her ridiculous, pseudo-analysis, but sane people everywhere shouldn’t pretend this is anything but a laughable attempt is to rob women’s history of two extraordinary figures.
We used to have men’s sports and women’s sports. Now we have men’s sports and LGBTQIA+ sports. Somewhere along the way, womanhood got canceled.
If some women want to go along with this, that’s fine for them. They can start the LGBTQIA+ league, but to expect all women to go along with this is oppressing women in the name of a bogus, post-modernist construct.
Women have a right of association AS WOMEN!
You call it ‘pseudo-analysis’, I call it mental illness seeking validation.
There were enough gender-fluid types in military history to start an army–literally. Just offhand:
• The Spartans encouraged homosexuality because they thought it aided comradery
• The Sacred Band of Thebes were 150 homosexual warriors
• Alexander the Great swung both ways
• Romans joked that Julius Caesar, another famous swinger, was the “Queen of Bithynia”
• Emperor Hadrian famously had a homosexual lover
• Prinz Eugen of Savoy was purportedly homosexual
• Baron von Steuben fled Europe, probably to avoid prosecution for little boys
• General Bernard Montgomery was suspected of homosexuality
• Mountbatten had a thing for young men in uniform.
Of course, I’m only aware of all this second hand (ahem).
My point is that the CULTURAL APPROPRIATION of historical figures to push a gender-identity agenda is an act of bigotry. There’s more than enough LGBTQIA+ characters in history that idiots don’t need to make stuff up about historical figures who weren’t that way.
The same can be said about fictional characters in movies and lit. Stop subverting everybody else’s heroes. Get your own f***ing heroes.
Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery. My apologies, folks.
Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live comic series ‘The Ambiguously Gay Duo’ about Batman and Robin, only now the LGBTQ crowd is pushing these ambiguously gay stories as long hidden truths instead of satire.
Kevin, I LMAO watching those cartoons 😀
and yet you continue to keep wearing the batgirl outfit
@Karen
Also, SNL’s ‘Pat’. This stuff was literally the fodder for unthinkably absurd jokes. Woke millennials/gen z and their older coddlers would be hilarious if their entitlement and ignorance weren’t actually dangerous as adults, and I use the word loosely.
Sorry, @Kevin.
Sodomy was used as leverage to subjugate both men and women, boys and girls. Rape was used as leverage to subjugate women.
If gender is a state of mind, then so is race.
Transracial people should be able to apply for, and receive scholarships and employment. This renders Affirmative Action, Quotas, and similar practices irrelevant.
Both gender and race are social constructs.
I dare you to define race in purely biological terms. Then try it with gender. Make sure that your “biological” definition works for every single person who has ever been born.
Anonymous:
I have a print dictionary that shows sex and gender as synonyms.
The Left keeps redefining terms, and then declaring war on anyone who wishes to keep the original definition. Since the Left has infested academia, and those who disagree are either fired, forced out, or not hired, then academia has led the charge in redefining terms to fit Leftist ideology.
I am a woman. I have a right to an opinion on my own gender. My gender is not a state of mind. A man cannot just say, “I’m a woman today”, and become my gender. That makes womanhood meaningless.
When pressed, the Left cannot even define woman any longer. They try to define woman as feeling like a woman, but they cannot define the actual word, “woman.”
There is XX, XY, and intersex.
People can have all the surgeries they like, behave and dress how they like, yet they will have absolutely no control over how they are perceived by others. Centuries from now, archeologists may unearth the grave of a transgender, test the remains, and declare the cadaver an adult male, regardless of how he identified.
We need to stop lobotomizing the English language. Gender and sex have been synonymous, and woman has been easily defined, for centuries.
People have had enough. The transgender movement is erasing female history and female athletic accomplishment, as men try to take credit.
Karen S.
Wells said.
I think the moment when the USA turned and became the Rome, fall there of, is when we have a SC nominee declare she cannot define what a woman is, as she is not a biologist.
Anyone with a high school degree knows there are two sex chromosomes, XX and XY.
You want to “identify” as something else, fine, have at it.
Dont expect the rest of us to see you are a biological male, and compete in women’s sports and call BS!
Dont be surprised when real, biological women, also call BS and say WTF?
Karen,
Thanks for confirming that you’re unable to define race or gender in purely biological terms. BTW, “There is XX, XY, and intersex” leaves out lots of variations that are not any of those 3, and you’re also confusing sex chromosomes (e.g., XX, XY, but also XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and other variations) and reproductive/sexual anatomy (e.g., intersex).
As for “I have a print dictionary that shows sex and gender as synonyms,” do tell us the publisher and year of publication.
Although there has been an effort to change this, and thus disagreement, Klinefelter Syndrome has been considered an intersex condition.
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/intersex.pdf
Also, yours is a false hare. A diagnosis of a biological abnormality such as Klinefelter or androgen insensitivity is not required to qualify as transgender. Psychiatrists, physicians, and teachers are now pressured to automatically affirm…hence the lawsuits as these children grow up and realize they age permanent, life-altering consequences, including sterilization and castration, because of this automatic affirming craze.
Also, please see my comment above. I indicated the dictionary was a hard copy Merrimack Webster, published 2016, and I also quoted the differences in the online definitions. If you need me to link to the comment on this thread, please let me know.
Again, Karen, you did not quote the entire definition.
Again, Karen, you’ve confirmed that you’re unable to define race or gender in purely biological terms, in a way that applies to 100% of people who’ve been born.
BTW, you’re the one who introduced race into the conversation, and then you entirely ran away from defining it.
Also, saying that “Klinefelter Syndrome has been considered an intersex condition” does not biologically define “intersex,” since intersex people are not limited to people with Klinefelter Syndrome (nor the union of Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, for that matter).
Anonymous:
First you claim I’m dishonest, then you posted the exact same website I linked to, in which the site explained how the changes meant that gender now referred to behavioral characteristics. Then you pretended that I didn’t include the publisher or date, although it was in two of my comments.
I didn’t run away from any discussion. I don’t sit by my screen all day wondering if you might reply, and I stop checking topics. I never said race was biological. You created a false dichotomy. Historically, “black” referred to a person with dark skin whose ancestors came from Africa. Sometimes those ancestors arrived by way of Jamaica, the Indies, or the like. Democrats used to ascribe to the “one drop” rule, which it appears they still do today. Charleze Theron and Elon Musk are South Africans. I find it interesting that “colored” is a taboo word, but “people of color” is de rigueur. Skin color is actually on a spectrum, with the Dutch and Elon Musk at the palest end, and the deep ebony of Nyakim Gatwech at the other. There have been objections when Caucasians without a hint of African ancestry pretend to be black, artificially darkening their skin, perming and dying their hair. When Rachel Dolezal does it, it’s possibly racial dysphoria. When anyone does it for a character or costume party, it’s now called black face, which is a shame as Joy Weber was not impersonating a minstrel show.
We’re in a pickle. People can declare themselves any gender they want, or non binary. They can create personal pronouns like frog. There are therians and otherkin. Right now, transgender has been selected out of all the dysphoria as a condition we must affirm, and conform with. If a man says he’s a woman, then we must address him as a woman, or else risk getting fired, canceled, or otherwise punished. By that logic, if someone declares they are a dog, a mermaid, or an Elf, we would have to address them as such, or else risk punishment.
One of the conundrums is when Caucasians declare they are black. They darken their skin, dye their hair, and change their speech, but do not want to be accused of blackface. Rather, they want to BE black. They want affirmative action job and college placements. They want to speak for the black community. They want to be treated as black. It goes beyond Eminem participating in the rap genre with traditionally black rapper mannerisms. These are white people who identify as black. Same goes for those who feel like they should have been born Native American. Should people be allowed to change their race to Native American, or black, and be treated exactly the same as those races on college admissions, job applications, and when speaking on behalf of those respective communities?
I will say it again: If gender is now a state of mind, then so is race. Someone like Rachel Dolezal can identify as black, and should not have been fired from her position with the NAACP. Elizabeth Warren thinks she’s a Native American, and it shouldn’t matter that her lobster egg dish was not in any way, shape, or form, Native. She should receive no backlash, nor be scrutinized for the perjury of her recipe, or the ludicrousness of passing off a French Recipe as Cherokee. She thinks she’s Native, so she is. Rachel Dolezal thinks she’s black, so she is.
I never said intersex people were limited to those with Klinefelter Syndrome, and have no idea where you got that idea. You used examples of Klinefelter as some sort of gotcha, but that was included with intersex.
Like I said previously, I, like many people, prefer to use the meaning of the words “woman”, “gender”, and “sex,” before those terms became weaponized and politicized. If you cannot define what a woman is, then you really have no leg to stand on.
It’s quite simple, really.
Yes, Karen, I said “You dishonestly cut off the definition of “gender” to misportray the meaning. The section you quoted for gender referred to parts of speech / grammar, not to people.” You still haven’t admitted that you cut off the definition to misportray the meaning of the subset you quoted.
“Then you pretended that I didn’t include the publisher or date, although it was in two of my comments.”
You didn’t include the publisher or date in your August 18, 2022 at 2:52 PM comment that I initially responded to. I don’t think of you as narcissistic, but IF you expect that I’m going to search for and read ALL of your comments on the page before I ever respond to one, that’s a bit narcissistic. I asked you for the publisher and date in my response to your 2:52pm comment.
“I didn’t run away from any discussion.”
I suggest that you reread what I said: “you’re the one who introduced race into the conversation, and then you entirely ran away from defining it” (emphasis added). You still haven’t defined it.
“I never said race was biological.”
You said that gender is biological and analogized it to race. You now seem to be implying that you believe that race is not biological. Is that what you believe? If so, why are you analogizing gender (which you insist is biological) to race (if you’re saying it isn’t biological)?
“Historically, “black” referred to a person with dark skin whose ancestors came from Africa.”
All of our ancestors came from Africa. Our species first evolved in Africa.
“I never said intersex people were limited to those with Klinefelter Syndrome, and have no idea where you got that idea. ”
Here was the exchange:
You: “There is XX, XY, and intersex.”
Me: “‘There is XX, XY, and intersex’ leaves out lots of variations that are not any of those 3, and you’re also confusing sex chromosomes (e.g., XX, XY, but also XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and other variations) and reproductive/sexual anatomy (e.g., intersex).”
You: “Although there has been an effort to change this, and thus disagreement, Klinefelter Syndrome has been considered an intersex condition. …”
It’s the sole intersex condition you identified, so I responded: “saying that ‘Klinefelter Syndrome has been considered an intersex condition’ does not biologically define ‘intersex,’ since intersex people are not limited to people with Klinefelter Syndrome (nor the union of Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, for that matter).”
You still haven’t defined gender in purely biological terms, in a way that applies to 100% of people who’ve been born. I don’t think you can.
Anonymous:
I quoted you the entire definition for sex and gender that was not a part of speech.
You need to read my comment AGAIN. I did not define intersex. I said Klinefelter has been considered an intersex condition. Quite obviously, it is not the only one.
I most certainly did not use the grammatical definition of gender. That part of the definition is as follows:
“a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms”.
I did not include this definition prior, not because I’m dishonest, but because we are not discussing grammar, but rather transgender individuals.
It appears that you rely entirely upon false accusations and ad hominem, which is a poor excuse for wit and reason. This is a serious topic, and I have no time for childish, angry keyboard warriors in denial as to what the bona fide issues are. I’ll save my time for the adults.
Anonymous got a deserved whooping.
Karen,
“I quoted you the entire definition for sex and gender that was not a part of speech.”
That’s the point. You omitted part of the definition.
“I did not define intersex”
And I didn’t claim you did. You need to reread my response to your claim “There is XX, XY, and intersex,” which was that your claim “leaves out lots of variations that are not any of those 3, and you’re also confusing sex chromosomes (e.g., XX, XY, but also XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and other variations) and reproductive/sexual anatomy (e.g., intersex).”
Your claim “There is XX, XY, and intersex” is false, as there are people who are none of those 3.
“I did not include this definition prior, not because I’m dishonest, but because we are not discussing grammar, but rather transgender individuals.”
Actually, when you quoted part of the definition, we were discussing the meanings of “sex” and “gender,” NOT transgender individuals. You can’t even keep track of the conversation.
I did not post an ad hom about you. Perhaps you don’t understand what the ad hom fallacy actually refers to.
Anonymous, you complained as follows:
““I never said race was biological.”
You said that gender is biological and analogized it to race. You now seem to be implying that you believe that race is not biological. Is that what you believe? If so, why are you analogizing gender (which you insist is biological) to race (if you’re saying it isn’t biological)?”
I will repeat my statement. If gender is a state of mind, then so is race. If we can choose to completely change our biological sex, then we can darken our skin, dye our hair, change our manner of speech, and claim to be black. As such, we can expect to be treated as black, and benefit from hiring practices, college admissions, and other programs meant for black Americans. Transracial people should not be treated like the race they identify with. Native American Tribes shall have to open their tribal membership, or be branded bigots.
This is a very simple concept of applying the same standards. Internal identity is the new reality. Welcome to the new world.
“in a way that applies to 100% of people who’ve been born.”
It is a centuries-old trick of skeptics to deceive people by using borderline cases.
Your demand for “100%” proves either that you do not understand how a definition is formed, and its function — or you are dishonest. Maybe both.
Sam,
You cut off the part of my statement making it clear that I was referring to a biological definition: “You still haven’t defined gender in purely biological terms, in a way that applies to 100% of people who’ve been born. I don’t think you can.”
I was very explicitly not referring to most definitions, since most definitions aren’t biological. In biology, definitions often apply to every member of the species. Your response shows either that you do not understand biology or you are dishonest. Maybe both.
Backpedal much Anonymous the Stupid?
“. . . definitions often apply . . .”
Nice how you snuck in the “often.”
Try reading Aristotle on definitions, if you’re able to. Then you might know what you’re talking about.
Sam, ATS fails to understand the essence of anything under discussion. He is always looking for alternate interpretations to deride others. The problem he faces is, what does he do when the individual he derides is more intelligent than him? The answer is, that ATS turns into Anonymous the Stupid.
It’s like if an alien sends us a message, asking questions about humans. He asks if humans have tails and fur. We say, no, humans are furless, have hair only in certain areas, and do not have tails. Anonymous calls us all liars because of the rare occurrence of hypertrichosis, pseudo tails, and true tails. He insists that unless we list every known birth defect or genetic anomaly or select a single descriptor that applies to 100% of people who’ve ever been born, that we’re all dishonest.
He’s here to fight, not reason.
Anonymous:
You said, “you’re also confusing sex chromosomes (e.g., XX, XY, but also XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and other variations) and reproductive/sexual anatomy (e.g., intersex).”
Clearly, you did not read the link I posted.
Anonymous:
Here is a link to one of my comments regarding the dictionary:
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/17/joan-of-arc-becomes-latest-flashpoint-in-terf-fight/comment-page-2/#comment-2214664
and
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/17/joan-of-arc-becomes-latest-flashpoint-in-terf-fight/comment-page-2/#comment-2214652
“Both gender and race are *social constructs*.” (Emphasis added.)
Translated: The meaning of those concepts is determined by collective will or feelings. Therefore, the group (and whoever is anointed the “Voice” of that group) is free to assert whatever meaning it desires.
That’s not how objective language works.
Who says that they’re objective?
Karen was asked “to define race in purely biological terms. Then try it with gender. Make sure that your “biological” definition works for every single person who has ever been born,” and she couldn’t do it. I doubt that you can do it either.
“Who says that they’re objective?”
No “who,” but *what* — reality. But I can understand why you wish to dispense with reality.
I don’t wish to dispense with reality at all.
Notice that you simply ignore the challenge to present “objective language” that defines race and gender in purely biological terms, in a way that applies to 100% of people who’ve been born. Your inability to do this is objective reality.
race and gender are ultimately determined by specific genes, chromosomes and/or combinations.
These are facts.
If you wish to pretend these are subjective – that introduces other problems.
If something is a choice – then you are not entitled to government protection for your choices.
The entire concept of legally protected classes, the 14th amendment right to equal rights before the law REQUIRES that the distinctions being made are immutable – sex, race.
You can not impose a duty on people to respect the choices of others – you can only SOMETIMES require that the rest of us not interfere with free choices.
While we are not free to discriminate based on immutable characteristics.
Regardless, you do not get to have it both ways.
Either gender is immutable – genetic or hormonal(which begs the question of why trans people need hormones), and is theirfore protectable. Or it is a choice – which is not protected.
If race and gender are choices – then they are not entitled to constitutional protection.
People chose to murder others – we are not obligated to protect that choice.
The lawsuits are beginning against gender clinics who automatically affirm, and chemically and surgically castrate and sterilize minors.
I predict that many people currently pushing transgenderism in schools, children’s programing, and in society in general, will hastily back away and disavow holding these views when enough people sue clinics and doctors for ruining their lives.
It’s like in Nazi Germany and the surrounding countries. Those who voiced support, cooperating, or participated for the most part claimed to be underground freedom fighters. You’d think 95% of Germany was secretly working against Hitler. When history proves the castration of children barbaric, those who pushed this ideology will rapidly claim they opposed it.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/infamous-british-gender-clinic-will-be-sued-by-1000-families-report
Queen Elizabeth was not transgender. You can be a woman, yet eschew confining social mores that restricted women’s freedom.
Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth were devout Christians. To pretend that they were transgender would likely have upset and offended the real women terribly.
My gender is not just a state of mind.
There is a misogynistic element to transgenderism.
Biological men are claiming that all a woman is, is a state of mind that cannot be defined, and may change at any moment.
Biological men are competing against women and swiping up the top spots, and scholarships, in women’s sports divisions.
Biological men are entering women’s shelters, restrooms, showers, and changing rooms.
Biological men are being nominated for “woman of the year” awards.
When women object to any of the above, biological men tell them to shut up, call them bigots, harass them, try to impoverish them through attempts to get them fired or canceled, or get them thrown off sports team.
When a black woman complained that a man was exposing his genitals to young girls in the women’s changing area of the Wi Spa in Los Angeles, California, white men told her to shut up and called her transphobic. Turns out the man was a registered sex offender. Transgender policies left the Wi Spa employees helpless to stop him from entering women’s changing areas.
Transgenderism essentially does away with the concept of being gay or lesbian. If gender is fluid, then it’s impossible to be attracted to your own gender. Gay people can be reduced to transgender women who are attracted to men.
Transgenderism relies upon gender stereotypes. Instead of the empowering message than women and girls can like science and math, dressing rugged, play sports, prefer guy friends, and like to work on cars, and still be women…now if a girl eschews dolls and dresses, and thinks boy clothes are cooler, she’s encouraged along the path of renouncing her gender.
Transgenderism is about rejecting your true, biological self. Rejecting reality. Instead, it constructs an unattainable fantasy. No matter how many bottom surgeries you have, you will never have a functioning female reproductive system. What you’ll have is a permanent wound, a body cavity created with scrotal skin never intended to be on the inside, with hair on the inside that has to be removed. This permanent wound will require constant, lifelong care, which will become quite difficult the older the person gets, until eventually that person will rely upon skilled nursing to take care of this body cavity. Without proper, daily care, the body cavity will suffer smelly infections. If you read the testimonials of those who de-transitioned, or who regret transitioning, it’s absolutely heartbreaking what puberty blockers and surgeries do to their bodies.
Do you understand the differences between sex and gender? (It sounds like you don’t, but maybe you’re just not wording yourself well.)
Only a fool like “Anonymous” would read the great comments from Karen S and then lamely ask if she knows the difference between sex and gender. Notice that the fool “Anonymous” conveniently ignores the black woman being forced to see the male genitalia of a known sex offender, the fact that MEN are beating women in their own sports and that MEN are winning “Woman of the Year “awards. Man this guy’s unhealth need to be contrary to the point of looking like a fool is tedious.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
ATS, don’t confuse gender and sex with gender identity.
Anonymous:
A few years ago, the Left redefined sex and gender, and then gaslit people who remembered what the words actually mean.
I have in my hands the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, copyright 2016. Just six years ago.
Sex: n 1. either of the two major forms that occur in many living things and are designated male or female according to their role in reproduction, also, the qualities by which these sexes are differentiated and which directly indirectly function in reproduction involving two parents.
Gender: n SEX 1
Sex and gender were synonyms. Interchangeable. Male or female.
The Left has simply declared the definition of woman has become indefinable, that gender is simply an internal feeling, and that sex used to be biological, but is now indefinable, as well.
Today, the same dictionary’s online website defines the terms as follows:
Sex: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Woman: 1a : an adult female person
b : a woman belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination
Female: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male
The Left wildly redefined sex and gender as behavioral and psychological. However, again, the Left created a paradox. If sex is the behavioral characteristics of a male and female, and gender is the behavioral traits typically associated with one sex, and female is now not definable…then gender has become a collection of stereotypes. Women typically are feminine. Men are typically masculine. If a biological female dresses like a man and likes to work on cars, she is exhibiting the behavior “typically associated” with males. That would define her as having the gender of a male. Thus, male and female has been reduced to stereotypes. Tomboys are now transgender.
This is gaslighting. I will not participate. Thus, I define male, female, man, woman, gender, and sex, according to the ancient traditions and science as of 2016, in the long, long ago time of 6 years ago.
My previous response didn’t post for some reason.
Attempt #2:
Karen,
You dishonestly cut off the definition of “gender” to misportray the meaning. The section you quoted for gender referred to parts of speech / grammar, not to people, and the section that refers to people says that “gender” means “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” and “gender identity.” Here are the M-W definitions:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Pay particular attention to the section with the header “Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide.”
You are like a child with childhood fantasies. Today you want to be a fireman and tomorrow a policeman. Words do eventually change and some have to be replaced because such changes left a void.
In the present, gender and sex are virtually the same. A proper characterization would be better than all your tomfoolery. Try gender identity and quit the BS.
Anonymous:
You linked to the online definitions of sex and gender, from which I’ve already drawn to illustrate how the Left has redefined both terms, as compared with the 2016 print version, in order to suit their narrative.
In a similar manner, “thug” means violent criminal, and has done for hundreds of years. The Left has sought to redefine “thug” as a racist term, and yet the mafia are certainly thugs.
Do not accuse me of dishonesty when I use exact quotes.
People need to find their backbone and not comply.
Karen,
Merrian-Webster is not “the left.” And my claim was that you dishonestly omitted part of the definition, which is true. Using exact — but incomplete — quotes is dishonest in this context, as it removes relevant information from the quote.
Actually, Merriam-Webster has been conforming to some of the left’s craziness.
In #2 they clarify: 2a : SEX sense 1a
the feminine gender
a precedes b so a is the most used. That the left perverts words is well known, but ATS wishes that perversion to exist long before it is ripe. Everything he says is tinged with deceit. Karen is correct. ATS is wrong, though meanings are changing. Gender identity is a better way of being clear, but ATS wants to make sure that the left’s pick for Supreme Court Judge cannot answer the question, what is a woman? ATS likes to be fluid (deceitful), so like with everything else, he makes statements that may or may not be true, calling them fact. Most of the time, he ends up wrong but doesn’t care. Lying and deceitfulness are his primary agenda.
“The left” has taken over most of out institutions – and in doing so the consequences have been a massive loss of trust in those institutions.
No sane person “trust” online resources of anykind that have anything to do with terms that were not controversial 20 years ago – but somehow are now.
If the meaning of a word in a dictionary has changed in the past 20 years and the change reflects ideology at play – the change is corrupt – and near universally driven by the left.
“Do you understand the differences between sex and gender?”
Do you understand that people are not obligated to entertain your delusional distinctions?
You’ve previously insisted that opinions are T/F. I bet you’ll be unable to prove the truth-value of your opinion that these distinctions are “delusional.”
“I bet you’ll be unable to prove . . .”
I’d sooner try to prove something to a carrot.
How unsurprising.
DISCIPLINE & RESOLVE
“Where ignorance is bliss, Tis folly to be wise.”
– Thomas Grey
____________
“If you build it, he will come.”
– Strange Voice, Field of Dreams
__________________________
“If you demolish it, they will go.”
– Anonymous
___________
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
– P.T. Barnum
George——-I LOVE this: “If you demolish it, they will go.”
Thank you for the laugh!
Historians have debunked this type of claim. Joan of Arc always called herself “the maiden” (“la pucelle”), thereby clearly identifying as female. The idea that she “transgressed gender” is based on a number of misconceptions: she said she didn’t fight in combat, and we know from the records that she didn’t lead directly. She was a religious visionary in that era when there were many women in that role. Her so-called “male clothing” was just the soldier’s outfit initially given to her by the troops who escorted her to Chinon for practical reasons; and several eyewitnesses at her trial said she continued wearing it in prison so she could keep it “firmly laced and tied” to keep her guards from pulling her clothing off when they tried to rape her. The bailiff, Jehan Massieu, said they finally maneuvered her into a “relapse” by taking away her dress and forcing her to put the soldier’s clothing back on, then the judge condemned her; but the Globe Theatre’s staff claim that this somehow means that she was willing to die for male clothing. She was convicted by a tribunal which is proven by English government records to have been supporters of the English, and eyewitnesses said the tribunal deliberately falsified the trial transcript and convicted her on false charges. She was not “androgynous” as this play tries to present her: eyewitnesses described her as “beautiful and shapely”, and her hair wasn’t nearly as short as it has been made out to be. Likewise, Elizabeth I always clearly identified herself as a woman (and dressed as a woman etc) even if she sometimes used the practice (common in that era) of using masculine language to describe a woman taking on a leadership role, which has nothing to do with modern gender politics.
Thank you for this historical information.
Ironically, the trans ideologues appear to be prisoners of gender stereotypes; if a woman takes on a stereotypically male role she must “really” be a man.
“Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you!”
It is as if the small percentages of people who find themselves outside the biological male/female dynamic/dichotomy seek to elevate their own status even if (and perhaps especially because) it diminishes the majority experience of being genetically male and female. Thus, the pejorative TERF.
I support any adults’s freedom to live their own lives however they wish.
So long as they do not impose duties on others.
You can not force others to like your choices.
You can not compel speech.
You can not force others to live in an alternate reality.
Tell that to Joe Biden’s apparatchik:
Twitter Becomes a Tool of Government Censorship
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-becomes-a-tool-of-government-censors-alex-berenson-twitter-facebook-ban-covid-misinformation-first-amendment-psaki-murthy-section-230-antitrust-11660732095
Facts that Mr. Berenson unearthed through the discovery process confirm that the administration has been secretly asking social-media companies to shut down the accounts of specific prominent critics of administration policy
If these people can get you to believe that men can get Pregnant and boys should get scholarships designed for girls. They can get you to believe anything.
Leftists. So predictable. These are the same people who ban books from school districts like the Holy Bible, Diary of Anne Frank, etc.
Keller ISD to remove controversial books, including the Bible, from library shelves for review
https://www.fox4news.com/news/keller-isd-to-remove-controversial-books-including-the-bible-from-library-shelves-for-review
KELLER, Texas – Keller ISD is asking campus staff and librarians to remove more than 40 books from library shelves.
I am convinced that many of the activists who aim to change the fundamentals of society could care less about debating philosophy. Once again, females are victimized by this movement. A big, linebacker sized man can call himself a woman and compete in women’s sports. A male prisoner can say he identifies as a woman and be placed in a women’s block where the greater majority of prisoners are victims of sexual abuse. The bizarre list goes on and continues to grow.
A woman should be able to pursue any career she desires from truck driving, welder, mechanic to physician or attorney. Why must the activists attach an arbitrary label to everyone?
I am proud the J.K. Rowling has the guts to call them out for what it is.
Each person is uniquely themselves. It’s nobody’s business to force their limited mindset or categories on a person. This is an attack on individuality.
“Delores, It is a depressingly masculine world.”
Vera Donovan