"The 'trans' experiment will be remembered as the great medical error of our era."
Indeed. Though more like a crime of the century, a medical scandal to rival "Dr." Mengele and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study combined.
But a rather thorough and damning indictment from you. Though, maybe arguably -- or maybe inarguably, that scandal indicts pretty much all of society for being asleep at the switch -- the sleep of reason breeds monsters; for being scientifically illiterate; for careless acceptance of "conventional wisdoms"; for accepting "small lies" with no awareness of the bigger ones following in their wake.
Something of a case-in-point is afforded by the too facile acceptance of the concept of "sex-change" which may have had its "birth" some 70 years ago:
"1952: It’s front-page news when George Jorgensen Jr. is reborn as Christine Jorgensen, gaining international celebrity and notoriety as the first widely known person to undergo a successful sex-change operation."
Though maybe moot whether that phrase was actually used then. But some million hits from Google on the term, more than of few of which "engender" some eyebrow raising, notably this from, all places, Alberta's Health Services:
"A person’s sex and gender are determined by a variety of factors – not simply genetics."
In any case, some reason -- and no shortage of evidence, to argue that a large part of the problem is the view -- mostly on "our" side -- that "sex is immutable". Something of a fairly popular mantra spouted by all and sundry from Maya Forstater to Suzanne Moore in her recent review of a book on the Tavistock scandal:
IF having a vagina or a penis-and-testicles -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof -- constituted the "necessary & sufficient conditions" to qualify as a female or male, respectively, THEN, of course, sex-changes would necessarily follow. On the other hand, IF having an XX or an XY karyotype constituted the same necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as female or male, respectively, THEN "immutable" would, likewise, necessarily follow.
The point is that the conclusions follow from the premises, at least if we're not going by wishful thinking -- which, rather sadly, seems to characterize much of the transgender issue.
However, neither of those premises, neither of those definitions are at all what comprise the biological definitions stipulated in credible biological journals such as Theoretical Biology, and Molecular Human Reproduction. From the Glossary of the latter:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
And from those premises, from those definitions, it necessarily follows that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless -- hardly "immutable".
"wishful thinking" doesn't characterize just the transgendered; it's ubiquitous on virtually all sides of the whole transgender clusterfuck and from top to bottom. As Walt Kelly's Pogo put it many years ago, "We have seen the enemy -- and he is us" ...
Bravo yet again, Mr. Aaron. You make strong points. I´ve included links to your videos in some of my recent articles.
In trying to find an angle of this story to critique in which I could add something that hasnt been said a million times before, I chose to focus on the linguistic angle of the trans agenda...
Presumably, 2023 will be the year that the Left realizes that it needs a serious system update. It´s probably a good idea for us post-Leftists to think about how to create a soft landing for people who are arriving late to the party. It´s not strategic to mock and belittle them. Rather, we should be creating a welcoming, friendly culture.
Part of the way to do this is through humour. Really, comedians have been leading the way in breaking certain cultural taboos.
For instance, I think that Dave Chappelle´s comedy special represented a turning point in the culture wars. In that special, Chappelle pointed out how insane it was that rapper Da Baby faced more backlash for making disparagingly about trans people than for murdering someone.
In the words of Chappelle ¨In our country, you can shoot and kill a n*gga but you better not hurt a gay person's feelings.¨
I think that this did the trick. From what I´ve observed, the taboo against criticizing trans ideology has fallen.
The comedian revealed the absurdity of the pseudo-moralism of wokeness, and it´s been on shakier and shakier ground ever since. Now, I´m not saying that we can stick a fork in it, but I do think that it is unlikely that trans ideology will spread to non-English speaking countries.
Trans ideologues want a gender-neutral language, and romance languages are extremely gendered. Most people don´t know this, but the term gender actually comes from linguistics. In French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, nouns are either masculine or feminine.
When I was living in Montreal, I noticed that there was a tendency for francophones to speak in English when in ¨safe spaces¨ where trans-inclusive language was de rigueur. It was easier speaking in English than to use the extremely unwieldy gender-neutral French that trans ideologues have invented in recent years.
There do exist gender-neutral pronouns in French, but you wouldn´t believe how ugly they sound. Furthermore, because adjectives have to correpond to gender in French, it´s just much more difficult to speak in a gender-neutral way.
Now, try to imagine how Quebecois people feel about this. They´ve fought to preserve their culture for generations and now, somehow, speaking their native language has become problematic. According to whom? Anglophones.
Now, I grew up amongst Quebecois people, and I can tell you right now that there´s no fucking way that they´re going to give up their language just because some woke university students have a problem with it. I don´t know about France, Spain, or Italy, but I´m guessing that they would feel similarly. As for Latin America, all I´ve got to say is that most people have bigger fish to fry.
Really glad you got in this fight.
"The 'trans' experiment will be remembered as the great medical error of our era."
Indeed. Though more like a crime of the century, a medical scandal to rival "Dr." Mengele and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study combined.
But a rather thorough and damning indictment from you. Though, maybe arguably -- or maybe inarguably, that scandal indicts pretty much all of society for being asleep at the switch -- the sleep of reason breeds monsters; for being scientifically illiterate; for careless acceptance of "conventional wisdoms"; for accepting "small lies" with no awareness of the bigger ones following in their wake.
Something of a case-in-point is afforded by the too facile acceptance of the concept of "sex-change" which may have had its "birth" some 70 years ago:
"1952: It’s front-page news when George Jorgensen Jr. is reborn as Christine Jorgensen, gaining international celebrity and notoriety as the first widely known person to undergo a successful sex-change operation."
https://www.wired.com/2010/12/1201first-sex-change-surgery/
Though maybe moot whether that phrase was actually used then. But some million hits from Google on the term, more than of few of which "engender" some eyebrow raising, notably this from, all places, Alberta's Health Services:
"A person’s sex and gender are determined by a variety of factors – not simply genetics."
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/pf/div/if-pf-div-terms-and-phrases-to-avoid.pdf
In any case, some reason -- and no shortage of evidence, to argue that a large part of the problem is the view -- mostly on "our" side -- that "sex is immutable". Something of a fairly popular mantra spouted by all and sundry from Maya Forstater to Suzanne Moore in her recent review of a book on the Tavistock scandal:
https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/a-review-of-time-to-think-the-book
IF having a vagina or a penis-and-testicles -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof -- constituted the "necessary & sufficient conditions" to qualify as a female or male, respectively, THEN, of course, sex-changes would necessarily follow. On the other hand, IF having an XX or an XY karyotype constituted the same necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as female or male, respectively, THEN "immutable" would, likewise, necessarily follow.
The point is that the conclusions follow from the premises, at least if we're not going by wishful thinking -- which, rather sadly, seems to characterize much of the transgender issue.
However, neither of those premises, neither of those definitions are at all what comprise the biological definitions stipulated in credible biological journals such as Theoretical Biology, and Molecular Human Reproduction. From the Glossary of the latter:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
And from those premises, from those definitions, it necessarily follows that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless -- hardly "immutable".
"wishful thinking" doesn't characterize just the transgendered; it's ubiquitous on virtually all sides of the whole transgender clusterfuck and from top to bottom. As Walt Kelly's Pogo put it many years ago, "We have seen the enemy -- and he is us" ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
Bravo yet again, Mr. Aaron. You make strong points. I´ve included links to your videos in some of my recent articles.
In trying to find an angle of this story to critique in which I could add something that hasnt been said a million times before, I chose to focus on the linguistic angle of the trans agenda...
Link here: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/saying-things-just-to-have-something
And heres the most relevant part:
Presumably, 2023 will be the year that the Left realizes that it needs a serious system update. It´s probably a good idea for us post-Leftists to think about how to create a soft landing for people who are arriving late to the party. It´s not strategic to mock and belittle them. Rather, we should be creating a welcoming, friendly culture.
Part of the way to do this is through humour. Really, comedians have been leading the way in breaking certain cultural taboos.
For instance, I think that Dave Chappelle´s comedy special represented a turning point in the culture wars. In that special, Chappelle pointed out how insane it was that rapper Da Baby faced more backlash for making disparagingly about trans people than for murdering someone.
In the words of Chappelle ¨In our country, you can shoot and kill a n*gga but you better not hurt a gay person's feelings.¨
I think that this did the trick. From what I´ve observed, the taboo against criticizing trans ideology has fallen.
The comedian revealed the absurdity of the pseudo-moralism of wokeness, and it´s been on shakier and shakier ground ever since. Now, I´m not saying that we can stick a fork in it, but I do think that it is unlikely that trans ideology will spread to non-English speaking countries.
Trans ideologues want a gender-neutral language, and romance languages are extremely gendered. Most people don´t know this, but the term gender actually comes from linguistics. In French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, nouns are either masculine or feminine.
When I was living in Montreal, I noticed that there was a tendency for francophones to speak in English when in ¨safe spaces¨ where trans-inclusive language was de rigueur. It was easier speaking in English than to use the extremely unwieldy gender-neutral French that trans ideologues have invented in recent years.
There do exist gender-neutral pronouns in French, but you wouldn´t believe how ugly they sound. Furthermore, because adjectives have to correpond to gender in French, it´s just much more difficult to speak in a gender-neutral way.
Now, try to imagine how Quebecois people feel about this. They´ve fought to preserve their culture for generations and now, somehow, speaking their native language has become problematic. According to whom? Anglophones.
Now, I grew up amongst Quebecois people, and I can tell you right now that there´s no fucking way that they´re going to give up their language just because some woke university students have a problem with it. I don´t know about France, Spain, or Italy, but I´m guessing that they would feel similarly. As for Latin America, all I´ve got to say is that most people have bigger fish to fry.