It’s amazing how the SC can give a ruling on the definition of sex in a specific law, and the immediate response is about transgender rights rather than the sex based rights of every individual. And RD is accused of being polemical!
The tone of this piece is entirely justified IMHO and I plan to share it as widely as possible
“Some honest leftists who wished to stay loyal to that heritage were thereby forced into unwilling temporary alliance with uncouth bedfellows on the right.” This right here describes my daily dilemma. Thank you for pointing this out.
The provided text presents a polemical argument against transgender rights, framed as a critique of post-victory behavior. Below is a detailed critique of its content, structure, rhetoric, and ethical implications:
---
### **1. Tone and Rhetoric**
- **Inflammatory Language**: The text employs charged, derogatory language (e.g., “small-minded man,” “Hollywood airheads,” “Gadarene stampede,” “poison”) to vilify opponents. This undermines constructive discourse and alienates readers who might otherwise engage with the argument.
- **Hypocrisy in Tone**: The author initially advocates for “gentle consideration” toward trans individuals but contradicts this by adopting a vindictive, mocking tone toward critics (e.g., “strutting, preening definition of how not to behave”). This inconsistency weakens the moral high ground the author attempts to claim.
- **Ad Hominem Attacks**: Instead of addressing arguments, the text focuses on attacking perceived opponents (e.g., “men of mediocre athletic ability,” “callow junior colleagues”), which detracts from substantive debate.
---
### **2. Logical and Factual Flaws**
- **Misrepresentation of Biology and Gender**:
- The assertion that “a woman is an adult human female” oversimplifies the distinction between **sex** (biological) and **gender** (sociocultural). This conflation ignores the scientific consensus that gender identity is a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and social factors.
- The comparison of gender dysphoria to anorexia is flawed. Anorexia is a mental illness with harmful physical consequences, whereas gender-affirming care is medically recognized as beneficial for trans individuals.
- **Straw Man Fallacy**: The text caricatures trans advocates as promoting “preposterous doctrine” (e.g., “something so fundamentally biological as the sexual binary is vulnerable to mere personal whim”). This ignores the actual arguments of trans rights activists, who distinguish between legal/social gender recognition and biological sex.
- **Cherry-Picking Examples**: The focus on trans athletes dominating women’s sports (e.g., “upper body strength, long boxing reach”) ignores the nuanced, case-by-case policies most sports bodies use to regulate inclusion.
---
### **3. Ethical and Social Implications**
- **Harmful Stereotyping**: By reducing trans women to “men” and dismissing their identities as “delusion,” the text perpetuates stigma and contributes to the marginalization of trans people. This rhetoric has real-world consequences, including heightened risks of discrimination and violence.
- **Dangerous Medical Claims**: The description of hormone therapy as “poison” and surgeries as “malpractice” directly contradicts guidelines from major medical associations (e.g., WHO, APA). Such statements could deter individuals from seeking necessary care.
- **Call for Public Shaming**: Demanding apologies from specific groups (e.g., students, doctors, journalists) risks encouraging harassment campaigns rather than fostering reconciliation.
---
### **4. Structural Weaknesses**
- **Contradictory Messaging**: The text oscillates between advocating for “gentle consideration” and demanding punitive apologies, creating cognitive dissonance. For example, the author claims “let us not name and shame” but proceeds to list groups (e.g., “newspaper editors,” “doctors”) deserving condemnation.
- **Lack of Nuance**: The author dismisses all opposition as “sheep-like devotion to a passing fad,” failing to acknowledge legitimate debates within feminist, medical, and legal communities about balancing trans rights with other concerns.
- **Appeals to Authority**: References to Richard Dawkins and “rational principles” (e.g., secular humanism) are used to imply intellectual superiority, yet the argument relies heavily on emotive rhetoric rather than evidence.
---
### **5. Political and Ideational Bias**
- **Partisan Framing**: The text positions itself as defending “enlightenment heritage” against a “political left” that has “betrayed” its principles. This framing polarizes the issue unnecessarily, ignoring that trans rights advocacy spans the political spectrum.
- **False Dichotomy**: The author presents a binary choice between “biological reality” and “personal whim,” ignoring the possibility of reconciling trans rights with scientific understanding (e.g., legal gender recognition ≠ denial of biological sex).
---
### **6. Omissions**
- **Intersex Erasure**: The text’s insistence on a strict “sexual binary” disregards intersex individuals, who constitute ~1.7% of the population and challenge rigid biological categorizations.
- **Trans Voices Absent**: The argument excludes perspectives from trans people themselves, reducing their experiences to a “delusion” rather than engaging with their lived realities.
---
### **Conclusion**
The text is a rhetorically charged polemic that prioritizes mockery and condemnation over reasoned debate. While it raises valid concerns about free speech and fairness in sports, its logical inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, and harmful rhetoric undermine its credibility. By conflating sex and gender, dismissing medical consensus, and advocating for public shaming, it exacerbates division rather than fostering dialogue. A more constructive approach would involve engaging with evidence, acknowledging complexity, and centering empathy for all affected parties.
A cynical response, but this is good in terms of broadening the narrative.
The ‘attack’ on transgender people is a regressive and a dangerous socio-political move. Why ?
This movement towards a form of erasure will effect ‘transvestite’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘straight’ cross dressing individuals and communities, who will be targeted as potential transgender people. This will lead eventually to a form of ‘sexual policing’ similar to the ‘insidious’ woke policing. If a man seems ‘effeminate’ he will be targeted, likewise if a women is perceived as too ‘butch’, she will be targeted.
There is room in Society for all nuances of sexuality. Imposing rigid perceived so called norms becomes part of a ‘fascist’ narrative.
No it's not and no it won't. Not only is none of what you just said true, it's not women's responsibility to be a back-up, pragmatic "safe space" for gender non-conforming men. The ruling is explicitly said that discriminatory behavior is still unacceptable but, that for the purposes of law, trans-identifying men are not women.
Oh, and you also don't know what the word "fascist" means. The degradation and overuse of the term is does a disservice to language and to the realities of millions of people who literally died under fascism and Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s.
- **Conflation of Gender Identity and Gender Non-Conformity**:
The response equates trans women (“trans-identifying men”) with “gender non-conforming men,” a conflation that misrepresents transgender identity. Trans women are individuals whose gender identity is female, distinct from cisgender men who express gender non-conformity (e.g., wearing dresses). This conflation ignores the distinction between **gender identity** (internal sense of self) and **gender expression** (external presentation).
- **Impact**: Erases the lived experiences of trans women and reduces their identities to mere “non-conformity,” reinforcing harmful stereotypes.
- **Misrepresentation of Legal Rulings**:
The claim that a legal ruling explicitly states “trans-identifying men are not women” lacks context. Most legal systems distinguish between **sex** (biological classification) and **gender** (social/legal recognition), with many jurisdictions legally recognizing transgender people’s gender identities.
- **Example**: The UK’s Gender Recognition Act (2004) allows trans people to legally change their gender. The response oversimplifies complex legal frameworks, potentially misrepresenting the ruling’s scope (e.g., whether it pertains to anti-discrimination law, sports, or healthcare).
- **Straw Man Fallacy**:
The rebuttal dismisses the idea that women must serve as a “safe space” for gender non-conforming men, but this mischaracterizes the original argument (unseen here). Most advocacy for trans rights focuses on inclusion and safety for *trans women*, not demanding that cis women “accommodate” men.
---
### **2. Rhetorical and Ethical Issues**
- **Dismissive and Hostile Tone**:
Phrases like “No it’s not and no it won’t” and “you don’t know what the word ‘fascist’ means” shut down dialogue. The tone prioritizes confrontation over engagement, alienating opponents rather than persuading them.
- **Impact**: Undermines potential common ground, e.g., shared concerns about fairness in sports or free speech.
- **Invalidation of Trans Identities**:
Referring to trans women as “trans-identifying men” denies their self-identified gender, a practice condemned by major medical and psychological associations (e.g., APA, WHO). This language perpetuates stigma and contributes to the marginalization of trans people.
- **Ethical Concern**: Such rhetoric aligns with exclusionary movements that oppose trans rights, risking harm to a vulnerable population.
- **Misuse of Historical Trauma**:
The defense of the term “fascist” invokes victims of Nazism to chastise perceived overuse. While overusing serious terms like “fascist” can dilute their meaning, the response fails to engage with *why* critics might use the term (e.g., systemic oppression of trans people).
- **False Equivalence**: Comparing criticism of trans-exclusionary policies to Holocaust trivialization is hyperbolic and deflects from legitimate debates about authoritarian tactics in modern politics.
---
### **3. Structural Weaknesses**
- **Lack of Evidence**:
The response makes declarative statements (e.g., “discriminatory behavior is still unacceptable”) without citing specific laws, rulings, or data. This weakens its authority and leaves key claims unsubstantiated.
- **Example**: If the referenced ruling is *R (McConnell) v Registrar General* (UK, 2020), it specifically addressed legal gender recognition and birth certificates—not blanket definitions of womanhood.
- **Binary Framing**:
The argument reinforces a strict sex binary (“trans-identifying men are not women”), ignoring intersex people (~1.7% of the population) and non-binary identities. This exclusion reflects a narrow, outdated understanding of human biology and gender.
- **Omission of Medical Consensus**:
No acknowledgment of global medical guidelines supporting gender-affirming care (e.g., WPATH Standards of Care). Dismissing trans identities as illegitimate contradicts evidence-based healthcare practices.
The response echoes TERF arguments that frame trans rights as a threat to cis women’s spaces and rights. This ideology often weaponizes feminist language to exclude trans women from womanhood.
- **Critique**: TERF rhetoric has been widely criticized by intersectional feminists for prioritizing cis women’s comfort over trans survival.
- **Conservative Appeal to “Biological Reality”**:
The insistence on defining women solely by biological sex (e.g., chromosomes, genitalia) aligns with conservative movements seeking to roll back trans rights. This ignores the sociopolitical construction of gender and its legal implications.
---
### **5. Key Omissions**
- **Intersex Erasure**:
No recognition of intersex individuals, who challenge the notion of a strict sexual binary. This omission exposes the argument’s reliance on oversimplified biology.
- **Trans Voices**:
The response speaks *about* trans people but does not engage with their perspectives, reducing them to abstract political pawns rather than human beings.
- **Global Context**:
Fails to address how anti-trans policies (e.g., bans on healthcare, sports participation) in some regions mirror historical oppression of other marginalized groups.
---
### **Conclusion**
The response is a flawed defense of trans-exclusionary rhetoric that:
1. **Misrepresents** transgender identities and legal frameworks.
2. **Relies on harmful stereotypes** and invalidating language.
3. **Fails to engage** with medical consensus, intersex realities, or trans perspectives.
4. **Politicizes human rights** by framing inclusion as a threat to cis women.
A more constructive approach would:
- Distinguish between sex and gender in legal and social contexts.
- Center empathy for trans individuals while addressing legitimate concerns (e.g., sports fairness) through evidence-based policies.
- Avoid weaponizing language that dehumanizes marginalized groups.
By doubling down on exclusionary ideology, the response exacerbates polarization rather than fostering solutions.
If people feel disturbed by their physical / psychological / sexual orientation then therapies etc. need to be available.
Our sexual development / being is a crucial part of who we are.
From my own point of view I knew I was different from an early age (7, 8 years approx.) The rigid expectations of society made my childhood and adolescence difficult. I loved dressing up, make up etc. At 70 I am at ease as a gay ‘man’, and I am at ease and value my feminine side. We are all different. Variety is the spice of life. Diversity is to be encouraged. For people who are suffering there needs to be support irrespective of age.
My perspective on people who identify as the opposite sex to their phenotypic gender—whom I will refer to as "trans"—is that, like homosexuals and intersex people, they have always existed and deserve the same respect as other human beings.
Trans people can suffer from so-called "gender dysphoria," which is an intimate discomfort stemming from that perception, or from the aversive or offensive attitudes they may receive from their environment, or from a combination of both.
In addition to "trans" people, there is a much larger group of people who suffer from so-called "gender dysphoria."
This group, in turn, can be divided into two subgroups: those who have suffered from this discomfort since childhood and those who have suffered from it since puberty.
According to studies prior to the implementation of "affirmation therapies," approximately 88% of the subgroup who suffered from dysphoria since childhood outgrew it after puberty.
It is plausible that in the subgroup that suffers from this discomfort since puberty, the percentage that would overcome "gender dysphoria" without affirming therapies after puberty would be even higher, since those who are part of this subgroup have other comorbidities that better explain the dysphoria.
Homosexuality and transsexuality could have a similar etiology.
The best explanation for homosexuality is the endocrine perspective on the role of prenatal sex hormones (such as testosterone and estrogen) in the organization of the fetal brain.
I postulate that transsexuality could be explained in a similar way. There are several studies that attempt to validate this hypothesis, but so far they have been inconclusive.
Although the evidence is not definitive, given that trans people have always existed, it is plausible that they are people whose brains are organized in a way that is consistent with or close to that of the opposite sex.
It cannot be ruled out that experience also plays a role in people's self-perception of identity, especially in those whose brain organization deviates from typical plans (masculine or feminine).
So-called "affirmation therapies" are not validated as providing relief or as suicide prevention, and they do not sufficiently consider the risks posed by puberty blockers, lifelong hormonal interventions in healthy bodies, and the mutilation of healthy body parts, so they should be discontinued.
The best approach to "gender dysphoria" for people who suffer from this discomfort should be understanding, education, and waiting; and for those who turn out to be truly trans, acceptance of their situation, just as homosexual people or all those who have conditions that differ from the average population accept their situation. Medicalization should not be indicated as a medical option, but as an aesthetic option available only to adults who should be explained the risks involved.
Are trans people whose brains are organized like the feminine plan (or close to this configuration), women, and are trans people whose brains are organized like the masculine plan (or close to this configuration) men?
They are in part, but definitely not in the same way as women and men whose brain organization matches their gametal sex.
I think it's confusing to use the same terms—man/woman—to designate members of both groups (cis and trans).
So, are trans women women? Yes and no. In one respect, yes; but in the respects most perceptible to the general population, it depends; it depends on whether the trans person "passes" or not. In any case, they are not women in the same way that women are according to the gametal definition.
Do trans women have the right to participate in women's competitions? No, since their bodies—apart from a certain brain region—are male bodies, and therefore, they have such an advantage that athletic associations have agreed to separate participants based on their (bodily) sex.
Can trans women sentenced to prison be placed in women's prisons? No, since there is a risk of sexual assault toward other inmates.
If people feel disturbed by their physical / psychological / sexual orientation then therapies etc. need to be available.
Our sexual development / being is a crucial part of who we are.
From my own point of view I knew I was different from an early age (7, 8 years approx.) The rigid expectations of society made my childhood and adolescence difficult. I loved dressing up, make up etc. At 70 I am at ease as a gay ‘man’, and I am at ease and value my feminine side. We are all different. Variety is the spice of life. Diversity is to be encouraged. For people who are suffering there needs to be support irrespective of age.
This term Fascism is clearly defined in many reputable sources, and your final sentence is too narrow. Fascism has occurred in other countries within the 20th century and it continues in the form of a ‘new’ Fascism. Look at Europe, US, Russian Federation etc.
I have used a Women’s Toilet, usually because the Male Toilets are disgusting.
I agree that Trans Men who regards themselves as Women should most definitely not be placed in a Female Prison and vice vera (Common Sense).
Also as far as Sport is concerned there are real problems. All this I understand.
Fascism is an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy. It combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism. It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government.
Fascism places the importance of the nation above all else. The unity of the national community is prioritized above the rights of individuals. This leads to an intense interest in defining which groups belong or do not belong to the national body. Fascism is characterized by:
strident, often exclusionary nationalism
fixation with national decline (real or perceived) and threats to the existence of the national community
“Word salad” is a term used to describe a jumble of words and phrases that are incoherent or lack logical connection, making it difficult or impossible to understand. It can show up in a few different contexts:
1. Psychiatric context: In mental health, especially with conditions like schizophrenia or certain forms of psychosis, “word salad” refers to disorganized speech where words are tossed together without logical syntax or meaning. For example:
“Blue sleeps faster than Tuesday because the pencil sings.”
2. General usage: Outside of psychiatry, people might use “word salad” to describe writing or speech that’s overly complicated, buzzword-heavy, or nonsensical — like corporate jargon that sounds impressive but means very little.
Word Salad = a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.
Your response verges on insult, suggesting that the person may be suffering from schizophrenia. This kind of rhetorical response is indicative of people who cannot engage in a measured debate, and who do not have the rhetorical tools and lack the ability to justify their statements / opinions.
So, I can assure you I am not as you might suggest schizophrenic.
Making such an assumption is problematic and it says a great deal about the person delivering the assumption.
Much better to engage with the subject which initiated this fascinating thread / discussion / debate.
The response defending the original text as a justified polemic due to the "extremism and violence of trans activism" warrants a detailed critique. Below is an analysis of its arguments, assumptions, and implications:
---
### **1. Justification of Rhetoric via "Earned" Extremism**
- **Circular Reasoning**: The response claims the text’s rhetoric was "earned" by trans activism’s "extremism and violence," but this assumes the premise it seeks to prove. It does not provide evidence of systemic violence or extremism across trans activism as a whole, conflating fringe actions with the entire movement. This mirrors the original text’s straw-man fallacy.
- **Escalation, Not Resolution**: Even if some activists engage in harmful behavior, responding with inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., likening gender-affirming care to “poison”) perpetuates a cycle of hostility. It prioritizes retaliation over dialogue, undermining efforts to address legitimate concerns (e.g., sports fairness, free speech) constructively.
- **Moral Equivalence Fallacy**: The defense implies that trans activism’s alleged extremism justifies reciprocal vitriol. However, two wrongs do not make a right, especially when the original text’s rhetoric risks harming vulnerable individuals (e.g., trans youth, doctors providing care).
---
### **2. Generalization and Oversimplification**
- **Overbroad Characterization**: The response homogenizes "trans activism" as uniformly extremist and violent, ignoring the diversity within the movement. Most advocacy focuses on legal recognition, anti-discrimination protections, and healthcare access—not coercion or violence. This generalization dehumanizes activists and dismisses their grievances.
- **Selective Outrage**: The defense fixates on alleged activist extremism while sidestepping the original text’s harmful claims (e.g., medical misinformation, calls for public shaming). This asymmetry reveals a partisan bias rather than a principled critique.
---
### **3. Failure to Engage with Core Critiques**
- **Ignoring Factual Errors**: The response does not address the original critique’s exposure of the text’s scientific inaccuracies (e.g., conflating sex and gender, misrepresenting gender-affirming care). Dismissing these as mere "rhetoric" overlooks the real-world harm of spreading misinformation.
- **Ethical Negligence**: By focusing solely on tone, the defense avoids grappling with the original text’s stigmatizing language (e.g., labeling trans identities as "delusions") and its potential to incite discrimination or violence against trans people. This evasion normalizes dehumanization under the guise of "countering extremism."
- **Logical Fallacies Unaddressed**: The response does not rebut critiques of the text’s ad hominem attacks, straw-man arguments, or false equivalences (e.g., comparing gender dysphoria to anorexia). These flaws remain unacknowledged, weakening its defense.
---
### **4. Misuse of "Both-Sides" Framing**
- **False Balance**: The response implies that polemics are acceptable because "the other side" is extreme. This falsely equates the power dynamics at play: trans communities face systemic marginalization, whereas the original text’s arguments align with institutionalized opposition to trans rights (e.g., bans on healthcare, sports participation).
- **Victim-Blaming Subtext**: By framing trans activism as the aggressor, the response inverts reality. Trans individuals are disproportionately targeted by violence and discrimination; portraying them as perpetrators of "extremism" deflects accountability from systemic oppression.
---
### **5. Strategic Silence on Key Issues**
- **Medical Consensus**: The defense ignores the original critique’s emphasis on medical guidelines (e.g., WHO, APA) supporting gender-affirming care. Dismissing these as "poison" or "malpractice" contradicts evidence-based practices and endangers trans lives.
- **Intersex Erasure**: Neither the original text nor the response acknowledges intersex people, whose existence challenges rigid sex binaries. This omission reveals a commitment to ideological purity over scientific nuance.
---
### **6. Political and Ideological Motivations**
- **Weaponizing Free Speech**: The response implicitly positions the text as a courageous stand against "cancel culture," but it fails to distinguish between criticism and censorship. Demanding apologies (as the original text does) risks chilling speech far more than robust debate.
- **Anti-Progressivism**: The defense aligns with reactionary narratives that frame trans rights as a "passing fad" or threat to Enlightenment values. This ignores historical parallels (e.g., opposition to gay rights) and the evolving understanding of human rights.
---
### **Conclusion**
The response defends the original text’s rhetoric as a proportionate reaction to trans activism’s "extremism" but fails on multiple fronts:
1. **Logical Rigor**: It relies on generalizations, avoids counterarguments, and commits fallacies.
2. **Ethical Responsibility**: It dismisses harm to trans individuals while amplifying partisan grievances.
3. **Factual Engagement**: It sidesteps scientific and medical consensus to uphold ideological claims.
A more constructive approach would involve:
- Acknowledging valid concerns (e.g., sports fairness) without vilifying trans people.
Actually the reality is that it is the Right / Far Right and Middle to Right sections of the populace who seem to be the ones who care, now that it suits them. It all begins by targeting a particular minority, then it moves gradually by stealth to shut down other groups who are perceived as unsuitable and dangerous. What is dangerous is the mouth spouting fire. You obviously cared enough to chip in, if you had not cared you would have remained silent and within the ‘box’.
Hi Melvin, the pitting of women against women is deleterious for all women, and in that sense I reacted saying that I do care when a man spouts nonsense and insults in a very articulate way and is called out for it. I appreciate you did that. I’m not good at words but this is in line with how I see this issue: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DInuePvPWQP/?igsh=MWJuOWx6YTBoa3hqdQ==
I include this very interesting critique on a quote from Simone de Beauvoir.
Simone de Beauvoir’s famous dictum “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman” originally emphasized the social and historical construction of womanhood rather than any immutable biological essence . This idea became foundational for second‑wave feminism and later inspired key developments in gender theory, notably Judith Butler’s concept of performativity . In contemporary politics, right‑wing actors often invoke biological essentialism to challenge trans inclusion, framing legal definitions of “woman” in strictly sexed terms and defending women‑only spaces on that basis . Conversely, left‑wing and queer theorists have extended de Beauvoir’s insights to embrace transgender identities, arguing that if gender is constructed, it can be embodied and reimagined by all, including trans women  . These debates have produced sharp tensions within feminism, with gender‑critical (TERF) positions rejecting the applicability of “becoming” to trans experience, and trans‑inclusive feminists insisting on an intersectional, anti‑essentialist approach . Ultimately, de Beauvoir’s legacy endures as a provocative challenge to both biological determinism and simplistic social constructionism, urging a nuanced understanding of gender that underpins the evolving struggle over rights, recognition, and identity today.
Simone de Beauvoir’s Concept of Gender Construction
Historical Context of “One Is Not Born, But Becomes a Woman”
Simone de Beauvoir introduced the line “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman” in her 1949 magnum opus The Second Sex, arguing that the category “woman” is imposed by cultural forces rather than dictated by biology . In The Second Sex, she examines how external pressures—family, education, religion, and economic structures—shape a female body into the social role of “woman,” a process she contrasts with the freer “becoming” of men . This analysis drew on existentialist phenomenology, portraying women as subjects forced into objecthood by patriarchal institutions.
Existentialist Phenomenology and Gender
De Beauvoir’s appropriation of existentialist doctrine focused on how repetitive social acts constitute the experience of being a “woman,” positioning gender as neither innate nor purely performative but as a historical achievement produced through lived interactions . She drew on phenomenological ideas of constituting acts to show that gender roles have no pre‑philosophical origin but are continuously reenacted, laying groundwork for later theorists to reconceptualize identity.
Foundations in Gender Studies
Judith Butler and Performativity
Judith Butler built directly on de Beauvoir, arguing in Gender Trouble (1990) that gender is performative: it is constituted through stylized, repeated acts rather than reflecting any internal essence . Butler’s notion of performativity radicalized de Beauvoir’s insight by suggesting that there is no prior “woman” behind the performance; the performance itself brings “woman” into being .
Further Developments: bell hooks and Monique Wittig
Subsequent feminist thinkers such as bell hooks and Monique Wittig expanded the critique by highlighting how race, class, and colonialism intersect with gender construction and by arguing that even “sex” itself is socially mediated . In Feminism Is for Everybody, hooks contends that understanding socialization processes is essential to dismantling sexism, thereby building on de Beauvoir’s call to examine how identities are shaped by power .
Transgender Politics: Right‑Wing Perspectives
Biological Essentialism and Legal Debates
Many right‑wing and gender‑critical figures argue that legal definitions of “woman” must adhere to biological sex at birth, rejecting de Beauvoir’s separation of sex and gender as an ideological distortion that threatens women’s rights and safety . The UK Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirmed that “woman” in the Equality Act refers to an adult human female by biology, underscoring a biological‑essentialist interpretation in law .
Key Figures: Kathleen Stock and For Women Scotland
Philosopher Kathleen Stock has become a prominent critic of self‑identification policies, insisting that trans women should not access women‑only spaces defined by biological sex; her stance, upheld in part by legal successes of groups like For Women Scotland, exemplifies the gender‑critical application of de Beauvoir when misread as biological determinism  .
Transgender Politics: Left‑Wing Perspectives
Intersectional and Queer Theory
Left‑wing and intersectional feminists maintain that if gender is socially constructed, trans women’s gender identity is as legitimate as cis women’s, seeing trans rights as integral to feminist liberation . Organizations like NOW explicitly affirm that “trans women are women,” reflecting a broad feminist consensus that rejects biological essentialism in favor of inclusive social constructionism .
Transfeminism and Trans Inclusion
Transfeminism, popularized by activists such as Emi Koyama and Susan Stryker, applies de Beauvoir’s frame to critique transmisogyny and patriarchy’s impact on trans women, arguing for the expansion of feminist solidarity to encompass all gender‑nonconforming experiences  . Transgender Studies Quarterly further cements this approach, showcasing scholarship that sees bodies and gender identities as sites for reimagining liberation beyond binary confines .
Tensions within Feminism: Radical Feminism vs Trans‑Inclusive Feminism
TERF Movement and Gender‑Critical Feminism
Gender‑critical or trans‑exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) argue that womanhood is fundamentally tied to biology and that trans women cannot share the same social experiences; this position is widely criticized as essentialist and exclusionary, repudiating de Beauvoir’s emphasis on construction  .
Trans‑Inclusive Countermovements
In response, trans‑inclusive feminists highlight that excluding trans women perpetuates the very binaries and coercive norms de Beauvoir sought to undo; they invoke her vision of overcoming rigid gender roles to support a feminism that transcends biological determinism  .
Conclusion
Simone de Beauvoir’s assertion that “women are made, not born” remains a vital provocation in contemporary debates over sex, gender, and identity. While right‑wing critics invoke a distorted biological essentialism to curtail trans rights, left‑wing and queer theorists build on de Beauvoir to champion an inclusive, intersectional feminism. The ongoing dialogues between gender‑critical and trans‑inclusive perspectives underscore the continuing relevance of de Beauvoir’s critique of patriarchy and her call to recognize the constructed nature of gender as a pathway to emancipation.
#2 “…This conflation ignores the scientific consensus that gender identity is a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and social factors.
- The comparison of gender dysphoria to anorexia is flawed. Anorexia is a mental illness with harmful physical consequences, whereas gender-affirming care is medically recognized as beneficial for trans individuals. …”
There isn’t consensus — and gender affirming may absolutely be medical malpractice with life altering harmful consequences. This is not opinion, but borne out by the Cass report. Your scree - well, it’s just #2 💩
So because some humans have different numbers of digits, you don't believe humans have 10 fingers and toes??? There's a spectrum in digits as well... For the sake of the "inter-digited" amongst us, you're going to say that you don't know how many fingers a human has, because it's a spectrum??? Since when did exceptions invalidate a norm? And your 1.7% is out by several orders of magnitude... Nobody in their right mind is claiming that a female with Turner's syndrome is not a woman... Except you (are you in your right mind?)
So, I've been pondering this topic lately. I feel that a big error in argument that people from both sides of this debate are making (perhaps some have even been doing this purposely) is conflating two separate concepts.
One is the scientific/biological concept of reproductive gender. Which, as Dawkins has pointed out many times, is defined by reproductive cell type/size and is defined in the same way across the animal kingdom and even in the plant kingdom.
The second is the cultural concept of gender. This idea is a cultural construct. It has little to do with scientific fact. For example, in the past, the cultural concept of 'female' included the ideas that women were illogical and unreliable, and should not wear pants. Our modern cultural concept has changed and now many women wear pants and are generally accepted as fully logical human beings.
I think a cultural construct can change and be adapted as culture changes. Trans people can redefine their genders in this sense. Biological gender, however, is not changeable.
As we discuss updating our cultural concepts around gender, I think people should avoid using arguments based on biological gender to narrowly define and categorize cultural gender. It is a cultural construct! It is malleable. At the same time, people on the side of trans rights should not conflate their cultural experience of gender with biological gender. Their experiences and feelings are valid but cultural gender roles and concepts are not the same as biology. I think people on both sides of this issue have made unfair arguments and accusations.
Emily, "gender" may be a cultural concept but so is gender ideology. Transgenderism only enforces the idea that there are wrong ways to be a boy or a girl.
We can not make laws and policies based on someone's "perceptions," only reality itself.
We do not require everyone to exclaim it's cold and wear coats just because a little old person somewhere is cold. They can wear a coat, sure, but 80⁰ is 80⁰ and the rest of us should not be required to say it's cold and turn up our thermostats in fear of offending.
By your argument, it seems you should also avoid defining being transgender as a wrong way to be a boy or a girl. Adults should be able to do what they want if they are not harming others.
If someone is cold, they should be able to turn their own thermostat to 80 without their neighbors complaining about it. It is only if they attempt to force their neighbors to set their thermostats to 80 that there would be an issue. Generally, I do not see trans people forcing others to change their lives. I agree there are a few cases of unfair sports competition that have been widely publicized and perhaps some people are aggressive about pronouns (I have not ever experienced this to be the case myself) but overall it seems to me trans people just want to live their lives. Being asked to use different pronouns is similar to being asked to use a nickname IMO, so it's not really a big deal. This is the only way my life has ever been impacted directly by a trans person.
You agreed with the 1st part of what I said but made it sound like you disagree. Lol. Your argument is not "clearer" or "more common sense." The last part of your argument is based on nothing but "your experience," which means nothing. It's a fact that every woman has been negatively impacted by trans-ideology whether they want to acknowledge it or not. Trans-identifying men have forced their way into womens and girls sex-based private spaces and even into our very identity. They are not women. In reality and in every science based definition of the word "male," even those with dsd's, they are men. They are men wearing woman face, it doesn't matter how they "feel."
Let’s say gender has now been redefined to be a social construct. That it no way changes the fact that sex is immutable and that in some areas of society, sex takes precedence. I’m thinking of areas such as sports, medicine, prisons, washrooms/change rooms, etc… where biological sex matters.
Right and I agree with that idea. That's what I mean by saying gender roles and concepts are not biology. By arguing that being trans is the same as being a biological gender people on the left on this issue are conflating the two categories.
Say you are a trans man. It is extremely unlikely you will be competitive on a cis men's sport team. The same is true for trans women -- they are not competing fairly in cis womens' sports. But the actual numbers of trans women competing in womens' sports is extremely low. So I think that people on the right of this issue are also guilty of conflating the issues in order to use the biological binary as an argument for completely shutting down the idea of trans gender people.
There is room on this issue for everyone. People can be trans without intruding on the rights of women. As a society, we can work on boundaries around this that are fair for everyone. To me, this court ruling seems like a decent start. In general, I like Dawkins, but as I have read him on his issue (not just in this particular piece, in general in his writing on this) i do feel like he is being dismissive of trans peoples' experiences and that he is often conflating social identity with biological identity to make his arguments.
The issue is not about shutting down trans rights. We’ve had trans people for ages and it wasn’t an issue until they started demanding that they be treated as the opposite sex in all areas and started claiming they were being discriminated and harmed by nasty transphobes if we didn’t acquiesce to their demands.
Richard Dawkins has repeatedly said that they should be treated with kindness and understanding and have the same rights to live as they please. But he has also said that their rights (as with everyone's rights) can’t override and take precedence over other people’s rights.
The idea that Women are Physically weaker than Men is a misogynistic myth used by both men and women to perpetuate the socio-psycho-cultural role of the predominant genders. I would assert that Women are actually stronger than Men. Why / How ?
Women endure greater periods of physical stress in their lives, including regular menstruation, pregnancy, child birth, post pregnancy symptoms, and earlier menopause, all these things on top of their duties of work, domestic involvement and child rearing etc. They often maintain their physical well being through additional physical exercise, all this would be impossible for Men to endure.
Trans Gender people, undergo hormone treatment over a long period, they undergo surgery and special counseling as appropriate. They like everyone else are essentially physically and mentally unique. When everything is therefore taken into consideration, then, I do not see that there is a problem in Sport. Let these things be brought out into the open and it is a level pegging. What is unfair is when competitors take drugs to specifically enhance their performance capabilities above and beyond other competitors who play by the book.
As a physically weak Man I have no problem sharing a toilet with a Trans Gender which ever way they be. The main thing is that I need to use the loo and wash my hands (seems simple enough). Like a Woman I need to sit down when using the loo. Actually I would be quite happy to use a Women’s toilet if I saw the deplorable state of the Men’s toilet, a Trans would agree I am sure. As to Prisons, well, we know what the state of prisons has become. Prisoners should not have to share Prison Cells and facilities should be suitably and well designed on the basis of a civilized society providing dignity to all. Trans Gender Prisoners may be better accommodated within separate spaces (seems logical). Unfortunately Governments refuse to invest in Prisons, Education etc. so problems will occur. However we should understand that the number of Trans Gender Prisoners is incredibly small statistically, so, any problems could easily be dealt with, but only with a willingness from society and government.
So, we have Sport divided by the main genders.
Men’s Football.
Women’s Football
Cricket
Rugby
But, not so much in Tennis - Mixed Doubles ?
Darts ?
Chess ?
There are a huge number of hypocrisies floating around this world to do with gender.
There is precedent for biological gender being a different category from social gender. The example of how women's social/cultural roles have changed though their underlying biology remained the same is one I used earlier. I would argue that the social definition of male gender is currently in the middle of a change. You can also see that these cultural definitions of gender vary from culture to culture around the world. For instance I am extremely grateful to be a woman in the western world where I am relatively free to wear pants and live life without being required by gender roles to wear certain types of clothing, etc.
"I think a cultural construct can change and be adapted as culture changes." There are limits imposed by human nature. My wife is Thai, and she assures me that absolutely nobody in Thailand would say that a kathoey is "really" a woman, and they would think that you're crazy for doing so. The kathoey live (mostly) ordinary and free lives without making demands on language or women's rights, and without a constant need for validation from others.
(My definition of "gender": Culturally mediated behavioral phenotype normally indicative of sex.)
I agree there are obvious limits. A trans women cannot become pregnant for instance. A trans women will always have an athletic advantage over cis women.
IMO cultural concepts should always be based upon the reality of the world, but historically, they have not and are not. There are all sorts of ridiculous cultural ideas about women from the past and currently in many cultures that have no basis in reality or science. There are many damaging and scientifically unfounded ideas about what men are that are currently circulating. It is hypocritical to pretend our cultural gender norms should be based in science on this one issue while ignoring all the other gender norms that have no basis in science. If you evaluate our society it's pretty clear our gender norms are not based on science so the terms 'woman' or 'man' in many cultural instances should be considered a separate term, separately defined from the biological meaning.
I do think the boundaries around trans issues will have to be decided legally on an issue by issue basis because our legal framework is something that is both cultural and (hopefully) based on scientific facts. I think this particular court case is a good example of setting a fairly narrow legal definition around this issue. (legal definition of gender is perhaps an additional separate term, so now we have 3!)
From my understanding it's a fairly narrow ruling that trans women are not legally women for the purposes of ensuring fair representation of women. Do you know, does it also rule that trans men are not men for the purpose of fair representation? Just curious, I haven't read the ruling itself, just reporting around it.
"It is hypocritical to pretend our cultural gender norms should be based in science on this one issue while ignoring all the other gender norms that have no basis in science." The main reality that gender roles will conform to is human nature and intuition. Social engineering meant to make it conform to scientific reality is secondary and the ability to do so is probably limited.
"There are all sorts of absurd cultural ideas about women, both past and present, in many cultures, that have no basis in fact or science. There are many harmful and scientifically unfounded ideas about male identity circulating today."
The point you make is understandable. And it is partially erroneous. A main argument in favor of genderist policies has been gender is IMMUTABLE and inherent. That's how you get "trans" children and "queer babies." As you note, conception of gender are mutable and fluid - not inherent and immutable. Even Judith Butler says so.
If people were willing to accept gender behavior fluidity and that gender roles or behavioral expectations - not sex - is a social ephermeral construct and stop the born in wrong bodies nonsense, we could come to conceptual agreement. We could see that for young lesbians especially, the allure of being treated as a man is a product of sexism and lesbophobia (real social constructs). We could accept that proto gay kids (male and female) are gay, not the opposite sex if we weren't sexist and lesbophobic.
Is the cultural concept of gender a cultural construct and has little to do with scientific facts?
Trans men (MtF) don't suffer because in our society the wearing of skirts is reserved for women, but because of an incongruence between their perceived sex and their phenotype. Their perceived sex has to do with the psychological characteristics of sex, much more than with the social constructs perhaps capriciously associated with it (such as, for example, the wearing of skirts).
Gender, seen in this way, has cultural (random) and biological components, inscribed in the brain's architecture.
An excellent piece, measured but impassioned. As RD rightly points out, the issue is not the tiny minority of people with gender dysphoria but rather their army of self-proclaimed saviours (or "allies" as they like to call themselves) who have turned what used to be a non-issue into a fundamentalist crusade, to the detriment of trans people themselves.
Yes, women deserve a huge apology. No, you don't get to suggest that women now go easy on trans identified males. Narcissists don't feel "forlorn", they feel outraged at being denied and try to take revenge. This is a dangerous moment. There is nothing women can or should offer these exploitative abusers, and shame on you for suggesting it. Please spend some time trying to walk in our shoes, as the objectified victims and targets of a predatory mental-sexual disorder. It is not an evolutionarily beneficient phenomenon, it is a *disorder*, in two types, and they are both *dangerous* to the objects used as mimicry sources: that's us, the women.
If you doubt this, take a look at your comments, at "melvin" the chatgpt abuser and I don't know how many who are expressing angry sympathy with his idiotic bad faith aggression, which is a good sign of the mendacious self-centeredness with which these disordered people will proceed, then go to twitter and look at the deranged promises of violence against women to be committed in public restrooms, sports facilities, and so on.
Dark personality narcissists do not feel "sad". They feel killing rages. Please do not put any social pressure at all on women to be nice to these lunatics. Not all women know how to tell men adopting this pose how deeply inappropriate it is, so I am saying it on behalf of all.
Wow! But does this really mean the end of gender ideology in the Anglosphere? Lots of people are too deeply committed, especially those who have sacrificed their own children.
The protests today against the court decision are concerning. Fairness and compassion for all is absolutely necessary but misogyny appeared to be the dominant theme. Violent language was aimed at those who have upheld women’s rights such as JKR. Do these people, especially the women involved, have any idea of the history of women’s suffrage? Apparently not. Trans women (men) appear to have a willing army of handmaids, just as Margaret Atwood predicted.
Those school and college teachers who groomed children to adopt a new name behind parents backs need to apologise for their wickedness. Those social workers who offered accommodation to my 17 year old daughter under Section 20 because we would not say the lunatic pronouns and who caused my ex husband to have a stroke need to pay and I want more than apologies. We need a full public enquiry. They need to be confronted with their malevolence
My friend believed they had the wrong body pre-school.They didn't tell anyone until they were adult, when their absolute conviction and the hell of not being able to live their life as they needed to became too much to bear. You will never know them as "different" because they fully transitioned and lived their true life for 30 years. Grow up, recognise reality and have a bit of empathy.
That's the problem... By not telling anyone for years, they didn't get help! They needed therapy when they were a kid, instead of becoming entrenched and cemented into their way of thinking. And nobody is saying that someone can't have a fixed idea that they want to be something they can't have (hell, look at all the people buying lottery tickets)... Just that they'll always be a man living as a woman, totally fine if that's what they want to do, and that there's more to being a woman than living as a woman, or simply wanting to be a woman... There's some biology (usually involving xx chromosomes) required
Unless you’re trans because this is cruel. Rowling is hate filled and bigoted and deserves no apology. Threatening to kill anyone is not ok even if they are despised for their views. But a ‘victory’? I doubt many will see this as a victory. And fyi, I’m not talking about sports, I’m talking about the persecution of trans folks. Trans isn’t a fucking new fad for fucks sake, trans people have always been part of society.
Mostly, stop fucking telling others what to do. And probably stop thinking about other people’s genitals so much, it’s fucking creepy.
It’s amazing how the SC can give a ruling on the definition of sex in a specific law, and the immediate response is about transgender rights rather than the sex based rights of every individual. And RD is accused of being polemical!
The tone of this piece is entirely justified IMHO and I plan to share it as widely as possible
“Some honest leftists who wished to stay loyal to that heritage were thereby forced into unwilling temporary alliance with uncouth bedfellows on the right.” This right here describes my daily dilemma. Thank you for pointing this out.
It's idiocy. It proves a lack of fundamental principles.
The only thing you should be loyal to are first principles like truth or justice.
The provided text presents a polemical argument against transgender rights, framed as a critique of post-victory behavior. Below is a detailed critique of its content, structure, rhetoric, and ethical implications:
---
### **1. Tone and Rhetoric**
- **Inflammatory Language**: The text employs charged, derogatory language (e.g., “small-minded man,” “Hollywood airheads,” “Gadarene stampede,” “poison”) to vilify opponents. This undermines constructive discourse and alienates readers who might otherwise engage with the argument.
- **Hypocrisy in Tone**: The author initially advocates for “gentle consideration” toward trans individuals but contradicts this by adopting a vindictive, mocking tone toward critics (e.g., “strutting, preening definition of how not to behave”). This inconsistency weakens the moral high ground the author attempts to claim.
- **Ad Hominem Attacks**: Instead of addressing arguments, the text focuses on attacking perceived opponents (e.g., “men of mediocre athletic ability,” “callow junior colleagues”), which detracts from substantive debate.
---
### **2. Logical and Factual Flaws**
- **Misrepresentation of Biology and Gender**:
- The assertion that “a woman is an adult human female” oversimplifies the distinction between **sex** (biological) and **gender** (sociocultural). This conflation ignores the scientific consensus that gender identity is a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and social factors.
- The comparison of gender dysphoria to anorexia is flawed. Anorexia is a mental illness with harmful physical consequences, whereas gender-affirming care is medically recognized as beneficial for trans individuals.
- **Straw Man Fallacy**: The text caricatures trans advocates as promoting “preposterous doctrine” (e.g., “something so fundamentally biological as the sexual binary is vulnerable to mere personal whim”). This ignores the actual arguments of trans rights activists, who distinguish between legal/social gender recognition and biological sex.
- **Cherry-Picking Examples**: The focus on trans athletes dominating women’s sports (e.g., “upper body strength, long boxing reach”) ignores the nuanced, case-by-case policies most sports bodies use to regulate inclusion.
---
### **3. Ethical and Social Implications**
- **Harmful Stereotyping**: By reducing trans women to “men” and dismissing their identities as “delusion,” the text perpetuates stigma and contributes to the marginalization of trans people. This rhetoric has real-world consequences, including heightened risks of discrimination and violence.
- **Dangerous Medical Claims**: The description of hormone therapy as “poison” and surgeries as “malpractice” directly contradicts guidelines from major medical associations (e.g., WHO, APA). Such statements could deter individuals from seeking necessary care.
- **Call for Public Shaming**: Demanding apologies from specific groups (e.g., students, doctors, journalists) risks encouraging harassment campaigns rather than fostering reconciliation.
---
### **4. Structural Weaknesses**
- **Contradictory Messaging**: The text oscillates between advocating for “gentle consideration” and demanding punitive apologies, creating cognitive dissonance. For example, the author claims “let us not name and shame” but proceeds to list groups (e.g., “newspaper editors,” “doctors”) deserving condemnation.
- **Lack of Nuance**: The author dismisses all opposition as “sheep-like devotion to a passing fad,” failing to acknowledge legitimate debates within feminist, medical, and legal communities about balancing trans rights with other concerns.
- **Appeals to Authority**: References to Richard Dawkins and “rational principles” (e.g., secular humanism) are used to imply intellectual superiority, yet the argument relies heavily on emotive rhetoric rather than evidence.
---
### **5. Political and Ideational Bias**
- **Partisan Framing**: The text positions itself as defending “enlightenment heritage” against a “political left” that has “betrayed” its principles. This framing polarizes the issue unnecessarily, ignoring that trans rights advocacy spans the political spectrum.
- **False Dichotomy**: The author presents a binary choice between “biological reality” and “personal whim,” ignoring the possibility of reconciling trans rights with scientific understanding (e.g., legal gender recognition ≠ denial of biological sex).
---
### **6. Omissions**
- **Intersex Erasure**: The text’s insistence on a strict “sexual binary” disregards intersex individuals, who constitute ~1.7% of the population and challenge rigid biological categorizations.
- **Trans Voices Absent**: The argument excludes perspectives from trans people themselves, reducing their experiences to a “delusion” rather than engaging with their lived realities.
---
### **Conclusion**
The text is a rhetorically charged polemic that prioritizes mockery and condemnation over reasoned debate. While it raises valid concerns about free speech and fairness in sports, its logical inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, and harmful rhetoric undermine its credibility. By conflating sex and gender, dismissing medical consensus, and advocating for public shaming, it exacerbates division rather than fostering dialogue. A more constructive approach would involve engaging with evidence, acknowledging complexity, and centering empathy for all affected parties.
It looks like someone (sort of) knows how to use ChatGPT! Congrats. 🤡
A cynical response, but this is good in terms of broadening the narrative.
The ‘attack’ on transgender people is a regressive and a dangerous socio-political move. Why ?
This movement towards a form of erasure will effect ‘transvestite’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘straight’ cross dressing individuals and communities, who will be targeted as potential transgender people. This will lead eventually to a form of ‘sexual policing’ similar to the ‘insidious’ woke policing. If a man seems ‘effeminate’ he will be targeted, likewise if a women is perceived as too ‘butch’, she will be targeted.
There is room in Society for all nuances of sexuality. Imposing rigid perceived so called norms becomes part of a ‘fascist’ narrative.
No it's not and no it won't. Not only is none of what you just said true, it's not women's responsibility to be a back-up, pragmatic "safe space" for gender non-conforming men. The ruling is explicitly said that discriminatory behavior is still unacceptable but, that for the purposes of law, trans-identifying men are not women.
Oh, and you also don't know what the word "fascist" means. The degradation and overuse of the term is does a disservice to language and to the realities of millions of people who literally died under fascism and Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s.
Here’s a detailed critique of the response:
---
### **1. Logical and Factual Flaws**
- **Conflation of Gender Identity and Gender Non-Conformity**:
The response equates trans women (“trans-identifying men”) with “gender non-conforming men,” a conflation that misrepresents transgender identity. Trans women are individuals whose gender identity is female, distinct from cisgender men who express gender non-conformity (e.g., wearing dresses). This conflation ignores the distinction between **gender identity** (internal sense of self) and **gender expression** (external presentation).
- **Impact**: Erases the lived experiences of trans women and reduces their identities to mere “non-conformity,” reinforcing harmful stereotypes.
- **Misrepresentation of Legal Rulings**:
The claim that a legal ruling explicitly states “trans-identifying men are not women” lacks context. Most legal systems distinguish between **sex** (biological classification) and **gender** (social/legal recognition), with many jurisdictions legally recognizing transgender people’s gender identities.
- **Example**: The UK’s Gender Recognition Act (2004) allows trans people to legally change their gender. The response oversimplifies complex legal frameworks, potentially misrepresenting the ruling’s scope (e.g., whether it pertains to anti-discrimination law, sports, or healthcare).
- **Straw Man Fallacy**:
The rebuttal dismisses the idea that women must serve as a “safe space” for gender non-conforming men, but this mischaracterizes the original argument (unseen here). Most advocacy for trans rights focuses on inclusion and safety for *trans women*, not demanding that cis women “accommodate” men.
---
### **2. Rhetorical and Ethical Issues**
- **Dismissive and Hostile Tone**:
Phrases like “No it’s not and no it won’t” and “you don’t know what the word ‘fascist’ means” shut down dialogue. The tone prioritizes confrontation over engagement, alienating opponents rather than persuading them.
- **Impact**: Undermines potential common ground, e.g., shared concerns about fairness in sports or free speech.
- **Invalidation of Trans Identities**:
Referring to trans women as “trans-identifying men” denies their self-identified gender, a practice condemned by major medical and psychological associations (e.g., APA, WHO). This language perpetuates stigma and contributes to the marginalization of trans people.
- **Ethical Concern**: Such rhetoric aligns with exclusionary movements that oppose trans rights, risking harm to a vulnerable population.
- **Misuse of Historical Trauma**:
The defense of the term “fascist” invokes victims of Nazism to chastise perceived overuse. While overusing serious terms like “fascist” can dilute their meaning, the response fails to engage with *why* critics might use the term (e.g., systemic oppression of trans people).
- **False Equivalence**: Comparing criticism of trans-exclusionary policies to Holocaust trivialization is hyperbolic and deflects from legitimate debates about authoritarian tactics in modern politics.
---
### **3. Structural Weaknesses**
- **Lack of Evidence**:
The response makes declarative statements (e.g., “discriminatory behavior is still unacceptable”) without citing specific laws, rulings, or data. This weakens its authority and leaves key claims unsubstantiated.
- **Example**: If the referenced ruling is *R (McConnell) v Registrar General* (UK, 2020), it specifically addressed legal gender recognition and birth certificates—not blanket definitions of womanhood.
- **Binary Framing**:
The argument reinforces a strict sex binary (“trans-identifying men are not women”), ignoring intersex people (~1.7% of the population) and non-binary identities. This exclusion reflects a narrow, outdated understanding of human biology and gender.
- **Omission of Medical Consensus**:
No acknowledgment of global medical guidelines supporting gender-affirming care (e.g., WPATH Standards of Care). Dismissing trans identities as illegitimate contradicts evidence-based healthcare practices.
---
### **4. Political and Ideological Biases**
- **TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) Rhetoric**:
The response echoes TERF arguments that frame trans rights as a threat to cis women’s spaces and rights. This ideology often weaponizes feminist language to exclude trans women from womanhood.
- **Critique**: TERF rhetoric has been widely criticized by intersectional feminists for prioritizing cis women’s comfort over trans survival.
- **Conservative Appeal to “Biological Reality”**:
The insistence on defining women solely by biological sex (e.g., chromosomes, genitalia) aligns with conservative movements seeking to roll back trans rights. This ignores the sociopolitical construction of gender and its legal implications.
---
### **5. Key Omissions**
- **Intersex Erasure**:
No recognition of intersex individuals, who challenge the notion of a strict sexual binary. This omission exposes the argument’s reliance on oversimplified biology.
- **Trans Voices**:
The response speaks *about* trans people but does not engage with their perspectives, reducing them to abstract political pawns rather than human beings.
- **Global Context**:
Fails to address how anti-trans policies (e.g., bans on healthcare, sports participation) in some regions mirror historical oppression of other marginalized groups.
---
### **Conclusion**
The response is a flawed defense of trans-exclusionary rhetoric that:
1. **Misrepresents** transgender identities and legal frameworks.
2. **Relies on harmful stereotypes** and invalidating language.
3. **Fails to engage** with medical consensus, intersex realities, or trans perspectives.
4. **Politicizes human rights** by framing inclusion as a threat to cis women.
A more constructive approach would:
- Distinguish between sex and gender in legal and social contexts.
- Center empathy for trans individuals while addressing legitimate concerns (e.g., sports fairness) through evidence-based policies.
- Avoid weaponizing language that dehumanizes marginalized groups.
By doubling down on exclusionary ideology, the response exacerbates polarization rather than fostering solutions.
Intersex people are not 1.7% but 0.018%
https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/
Thankyou for your response.
Your final 3 paragraphs I agree totally.
If people feel disturbed by their physical / psychological / sexual orientation then therapies etc. need to be available.
Our sexual development / being is a crucial part of who we are.
From my own point of view I knew I was different from an early age (7, 8 years approx.) The rigid expectations of society made my childhood and adolescence difficult. I loved dressing up, make up etc. At 70 I am at ease as a gay ‘man’, and I am at ease and value my feminine side. We are all different. Variety is the spice of life. Diversity is to be encouraged. For people who are suffering there needs to be support irrespective of age.
My perspective on people who identify as the opposite sex to their phenotypic gender—whom I will refer to as "trans"—is that, like homosexuals and intersex people, they have always existed and deserve the same respect as other human beings.
Trans people can suffer from so-called "gender dysphoria," which is an intimate discomfort stemming from that perception, or from the aversive or offensive attitudes they may receive from their environment, or from a combination of both.
In addition to "trans" people, there is a much larger group of people who suffer from so-called "gender dysphoria."
This group, in turn, can be divided into two subgroups: those who have suffered from this discomfort since childhood and those who have suffered from it since puberty.
According to studies prior to the implementation of "affirmation therapies," approximately 88% of the subgroup who suffered from dysphoria since childhood outgrew it after puberty.
It is plausible that in the subgroup that suffers from this discomfort since puberty, the percentage that would overcome "gender dysphoria" without affirming therapies after puberty would be even higher, since those who are part of this subgroup have other comorbidities that better explain the dysphoria.
Homosexuality and transsexuality could have a similar etiology.
The best explanation for homosexuality is the endocrine perspective on the role of prenatal sex hormones (such as testosterone and estrogen) in the organization of the fetal brain.
I postulate that transsexuality could be explained in a similar way. There are several studies that attempt to validate this hypothesis, but so far they have been inconclusive.
Although the evidence is not definitive, given that trans people have always existed, it is plausible that they are people whose brains are organized in a way that is consistent with or close to that of the opposite sex.
It cannot be ruled out that experience also plays a role in people's self-perception of identity, especially in those whose brain organization deviates from typical plans (masculine or feminine).
So-called "affirmation therapies" are not validated as providing relief or as suicide prevention, and they do not sufficiently consider the risks posed by puberty blockers, lifelong hormonal interventions in healthy bodies, and the mutilation of healthy body parts, so they should be discontinued.
The best approach to "gender dysphoria" for people who suffer from this discomfort should be understanding, education, and waiting; and for those who turn out to be truly trans, acceptance of their situation, just as homosexual people or all those who have conditions that differ from the average population accept their situation. Medicalization should not be indicated as a medical option, but as an aesthetic option available only to adults who should be explained the risks involved.
Are trans people whose brains are organized like the feminine plan (or close to this configuration), women, and are trans people whose brains are organized like the masculine plan (or close to this configuration) men?
They are in part, but definitely not in the same way as women and men whose brain organization matches their gametal sex.
I think it's confusing to use the same terms—man/woman—to designate members of both groups (cis and trans).
So, are trans women women? Yes and no. In one respect, yes; but in the respects most perceptible to the general population, it depends; it depends on whether the trans person "passes" or not. In any case, they are not women in the same way that women are according to the gametal definition.
Do trans women have the right to participate in women's competitions? No, since their bodies—apart from a certain brain region—are male bodies, and therefore, they have such an advantage that athletic associations have agreed to separate participants based on their (bodily) sex.
Can trans women sentenced to prison be placed in women's prisons? No, since there is a risk of sexual assault toward other inmates.
Thankyou for your response.
Your final 3 paragraphs I agree totally.
If people feel disturbed by their physical / psychological / sexual orientation then therapies etc. need to be available.
Our sexual development / being is a crucial part of who we are.
From my own point of view I knew I was different from an early age (7, 8 years approx.) The rigid expectations of society made my childhood and adolescence difficult. I loved dressing up, make up etc. At 70 I am at ease as a gay ‘man’, and I am at ease and value my feminine side. We are all different. Variety is the spice of life. Diversity is to be encouraged. For people who are suffering there needs to be support irrespective of age.
If you add any more scare quotes they will turn into barbed wire so no one can penetrate your argument anymore.
Nazi ideology is Fascism.
This term Fascism is clearly defined in many reputable sources, and your final sentence is too narrow. Fascism has occurred in other countries within the 20th century and it continues in the form of a ‘new’ Fascism. Look at Europe, US, Russian Federation etc.
I have used a Women’s Toilet, usually because the Male Toilets are disgusting.
I agree that Trans Men who regards themselves as Women should most definitely not be placed in a Female Prison and vice vera (Common Sense).
Also as far as Sport is concerned there are real problems. All this I understand.
Thank you
And demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of language models.
Explain.
Fascism is an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy. It combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism. It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government.
Fascism places the importance of the nation above all else. The unity of the national community is prioritized above the rights of individuals. This leads to an intense interest in defining which groups belong or do not belong to the national body. Fascism is characterized by:
strident, often exclusionary nationalism
fixation with national decline (real or perceived) and threats to the existence of the national community
embrace of paramilitarism. https://www.ushmm.org/information/contact-the-museum
“Word salad” is a term used to describe a jumble of words and phrases that are incoherent or lack logical connection, making it difficult or impossible to understand. It can show up in a few different contexts:
1. Psychiatric context: In mental health, especially with conditions like schizophrenia or certain forms of psychosis, “word salad” refers to disorganized speech where words are tossed together without logical syntax or meaning. For example:
“Blue sleeps faster than Tuesday because the pencil sings.”
2. General usage: Outside of psychiatry, people might use “word salad” to describe writing or speech that’s overly complicated, buzzword-heavy, or nonsensical — like corporate jargon that sounds impressive but means very little.
Word Salad = a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.
Your response verges on insult, suggesting that the person may be suffering from schizophrenia. This kind of rhetorical response is indicative of people who cannot engage in a measured debate, and who do not have the rhetorical tools and lack the ability to justify their statements / opinions.
So, I can assure you I am not as you might suggest schizophrenic.
Making such an assumption is problematic and it says a great deal about the person delivering the assumption.
Much better to engage with the subject which initiated this fascinating thread / discussion / debate.
It's a tool and it seemed to highlight some valid points, is there a problem with that?
Tools work best in the hands of skilled operators
What did you think of the AI analysis of Richard’s piece?
Practice makes Perfect.
Look at the development of stone tools.
Mind and Tool. That is the secret.
“ The text is a rhetorically charged polemic. . ..
That is exactly what it is, and IMHO completely intentional. Its rhetoric was earned by the extremism and violence of the trans activism side.
The response defending the original text as a justified polemic due to the "extremism and violence of trans activism" warrants a detailed critique. Below is an analysis of its arguments, assumptions, and implications:
---
### **1. Justification of Rhetoric via "Earned" Extremism**
- **Circular Reasoning**: The response claims the text’s rhetoric was "earned" by trans activism’s "extremism and violence," but this assumes the premise it seeks to prove. It does not provide evidence of systemic violence or extremism across trans activism as a whole, conflating fringe actions with the entire movement. This mirrors the original text’s straw-man fallacy.
- **Escalation, Not Resolution**: Even if some activists engage in harmful behavior, responding with inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., likening gender-affirming care to “poison”) perpetuates a cycle of hostility. It prioritizes retaliation over dialogue, undermining efforts to address legitimate concerns (e.g., sports fairness, free speech) constructively.
- **Moral Equivalence Fallacy**: The defense implies that trans activism’s alleged extremism justifies reciprocal vitriol. However, two wrongs do not make a right, especially when the original text’s rhetoric risks harming vulnerable individuals (e.g., trans youth, doctors providing care).
---
### **2. Generalization and Oversimplification**
- **Overbroad Characterization**: The response homogenizes "trans activism" as uniformly extremist and violent, ignoring the diversity within the movement. Most advocacy focuses on legal recognition, anti-discrimination protections, and healthcare access—not coercion or violence. This generalization dehumanizes activists and dismisses their grievances.
- **Selective Outrage**: The defense fixates on alleged activist extremism while sidestepping the original text’s harmful claims (e.g., medical misinformation, calls for public shaming). This asymmetry reveals a partisan bias rather than a principled critique.
---
### **3. Failure to Engage with Core Critiques**
- **Ignoring Factual Errors**: The response does not address the original critique’s exposure of the text’s scientific inaccuracies (e.g., conflating sex and gender, misrepresenting gender-affirming care). Dismissing these as mere "rhetoric" overlooks the real-world harm of spreading misinformation.
- **Ethical Negligence**: By focusing solely on tone, the defense avoids grappling with the original text’s stigmatizing language (e.g., labeling trans identities as "delusions") and its potential to incite discrimination or violence against trans people. This evasion normalizes dehumanization under the guise of "countering extremism."
- **Logical Fallacies Unaddressed**: The response does not rebut critiques of the text’s ad hominem attacks, straw-man arguments, or false equivalences (e.g., comparing gender dysphoria to anorexia). These flaws remain unacknowledged, weakening its defense.
---
### **4. Misuse of "Both-Sides" Framing**
- **False Balance**: The response implies that polemics are acceptable because "the other side" is extreme. This falsely equates the power dynamics at play: trans communities face systemic marginalization, whereas the original text’s arguments align with institutionalized opposition to trans rights (e.g., bans on healthcare, sports participation).
- **Victim-Blaming Subtext**: By framing trans activism as the aggressor, the response inverts reality. Trans individuals are disproportionately targeted by violence and discrimination; portraying them as perpetrators of "extremism" deflects accountability from systemic oppression.
---
### **5. Strategic Silence on Key Issues**
- **Medical Consensus**: The defense ignores the original critique’s emphasis on medical guidelines (e.g., WHO, APA) supporting gender-affirming care. Dismissing these as "poison" or "malpractice" contradicts evidence-based practices and endangers trans lives.
- **Intersex Erasure**: Neither the original text nor the response acknowledges intersex people, whose existence challenges rigid sex binaries. This omission reveals a commitment to ideological purity over scientific nuance.
---
### **6. Political and Ideological Motivations**
- **Weaponizing Free Speech**: The response implicitly positions the text as a courageous stand against "cancel culture," but it fails to distinguish between criticism and censorship. Demanding apologies (as the original text does) risks chilling speech far more than robust debate.
- **Anti-Progressivism**: The defense aligns with reactionary narratives that frame trans rights as a "passing fad" or threat to Enlightenment values. This ignores historical parallels (e.g., opposition to gay rights) and the evolving understanding of human rights.
---
### **Conclusion**
The response defends the original text’s rhetoric as a proportionate reaction to trans activism’s "extremism" but fails on multiple fronts:
1. **Logical Rigor**: It relies on generalizations, avoids counterarguments, and commits fallacies.
2. **Ethical Responsibility**: It dismisses harm to trans individuals while amplifying partisan grievances.
3. **Factual Engagement**: It sidesteps scientific and medical consensus to uphold ideological claims.
A more constructive approach would involve:
- Acknowledging valid concerns (e.g., sports fairness) without vilifying trans people.
You ran this through AI. Think for yourself.
I thought for myself and asked (it) the right questions.
Well, get to the point. Explain exactly what is amiss with the AI Critique of the various arguments. Be specific.
What Violence.
List concrete examples with proofs.
"which detracts from substantive debate."
This was not meant to be a debate. What gave you the notion that it was?
So, what is it supposed to be ?
All Hail bigotry and misinformation ?
Idiots who make nonsense claims don't get to demand time on stage. That's you.
Justify your claim. Using the label ‘idiot’ is easily applied inflammatory rhetoric by people who are unable to engage in a proper argument.
As far as being on stage is concerned ‘the world’s a stage …..’ and I have plenty of time and space.
I don’t think anyone cares, Melvin
Actually the reality is that it is the Right / Far Right and Middle to Right sections of the populace who seem to be the ones who care, now that it suits them. It all begins by targeting a particular minority, then it moves gradually by stealth to shut down other groups who are perceived as unsuitable and dangerous. What is dangerous is the mouth spouting fire. You obviously cared enough to chip in, if you had not cared you would have remained silent and within the ‘box’.
I refer you to my previous comment
See, you do care, so why not just admit it and stop playing silly games.
Bullseye.
I care. Thank you @Melvin
Elaborate if possible.
Hi Melvin, the pitting of women against women is deleterious for all women, and in that sense I reacted saying that I do care when a man spouts nonsense and insults in a very articulate way and is called out for it. I appreciate you did that. I’m not good at words but this is in line with how I see this issue: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DInuePvPWQP/?igsh=MWJuOWx6YTBoa3hqdQ==
Exactly.
Basically, Society should be inclusive.
Demonizing / Restricting one group at the expense of another is divisive and a recipe for further division and exclusions.
Yes I looked at the video with Owen Jones.
Owen is wonderful.
Melvin.
I include this very interesting critique on a quote from Simone de Beauvoir.
Simone de Beauvoir’s famous dictum “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman” originally emphasized the social and historical construction of womanhood rather than any immutable biological essence . This idea became foundational for second‑wave feminism and later inspired key developments in gender theory, notably Judith Butler’s concept of performativity . In contemporary politics, right‑wing actors often invoke biological essentialism to challenge trans inclusion, framing legal definitions of “woman” in strictly sexed terms and defending women‑only spaces on that basis . Conversely, left‑wing and queer theorists have extended de Beauvoir’s insights to embrace transgender identities, arguing that if gender is constructed, it can be embodied and reimagined by all, including trans women  . These debates have produced sharp tensions within feminism, with gender‑critical (TERF) positions rejecting the applicability of “becoming” to trans experience, and trans‑inclusive feminists insisting on an intersectional, anti‑essentialist approach . Ultimately, de Beauvoir’s legacy endures as a provocative challenge to both biological determinism and simplistic social constructionism, urging a nuanced understanding of gender that underpins the evolving struggle over rights, recognition, and identity today.
Simone de Beauvoir’s Concept of Gender Construction
Historical Context of “One Is Not Born, But Becomes a Woman”
Simone de Beauvoir introduced the line “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman” in her 1949 magnum opus The Second Sex, arguing that the category “woman” is imposed by cultural forces rather than dictated by biology . In The Second Sex, she examines how external pressures—family, education, religion, and economic structures—shape a female body into the social role of “woman,” a process she contrasts with the freer “becoming” of men . This analysis drew on existentialist phenomenology, portraying women as subjects forced into objecthood by patriarchal institutions.
Existentialist Phenomenology and Gender
De Beauvoir’s appropriation of existentialist doctrine focused on how repetitive social acts constitute the experience of being a “woman,” positioning gender as neither innate nor purely performative but as a historical achievement produced through lived interactions . She drew on phenomenological ideas of constituting acts to show that gender roles have no pre‑philosophical origin but are continuously reenacted, laying groundwork for later theorists to reconceptualize identity.
Foundations in Gender Studies
Judith Butler and Performativity
Judith Butler built directly on de Beauvoir, arguing in Gender Trouble (1990) that gender is performative: it is constituted through stylized, repeated acts rather than reflecting any internal essence . Butler’s notion of performativity radicalized de Beauvoir’s insight by suggesting that there is no prior “woman” behind the performance; the performance itself brings “woman” into being .
Further Developments: bell hooks and Monique Wittig
Subsequent feminist thinkers such as bell hooks and Monique Wittig expanded the critique by highlighting how race, class, and colonialism intersect with gender construction and by arguing that even “sex” itself is socially mediated . In Feminism Is for Everybody, hooks contends that understanding socialization processes is essential to dismantling sexism, thereby building on de Beauvoir’s call to examine how identities are shaped by power .
Transgender Politics: Right‑Wing Perspectives
Biological Essentialism and Legal Debates
Many right‑wing and gender‑critical figures argue that legal definitions of “woman” must adhere to biological sex at birth, rejecting de Beauvoir’s separation of sex and gender as an ideological distortion that threatens women’s rights and safety . The UK Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirmed that “woman” in the Equality Act refers to an adult human female by biology, underscoring a biological‑essentialist interpretation in law .
Key Figures: Kathleen Stock and For Women Scotland
Philosopher Kathleen Stock has become a prominent critic of self‑identification policies, insisting that trans women should not access women‑only spaces defined by biological sex; her stance, upheld in part by legal successes of groups like For Women Scotland, exemplifies the gender‑critical application of de Beauvoir when misread as biological determinism  .
Transgender Politics: Left‑Wing Perspectives
Intersectional and Queer Theory
Left‑wing and intersectional feminists maintain that if gender is socially constructed, trans women’s gender identity is as legitimate as cis women’s, seeing trans rights as integral to feminist liberation . Organizations like NOW explicitly affirm that “trans women are women,” reflecting a broad feminist consensus that rejects biological essentialism in favor of inclusive social constructionism .
Transfeminism and Trans Inclusion
Transfeminism, popularized by activists such as Emi Koyama and Susan Stryker, applies de Beauvoir’s frame to critique transmisogyny and patriarchy’s impact on trans women, arguing for the expansion of feminist solidarity to encompass all gender‑nonconforming experiences  . Transgender Studies Quarterly further cements this approach, showcasing scholarship that sees bodies and gender identities as sites for reimagining liberation beyond binary confines .
Tensions within Feminism: Radical Feminism vs Trans‑Inclusive Feminism
TERF Movement and Gender‑Critical Feminism
Gender‑critical or trans‑exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) argue that womanhood is fundamentally tied to biology and that trans women cannot share the same social experiences; this position is widely criticized as essentialist and exclusionary, repudiating de Beauvoir’s emphasis on construction  .
Trans‑Inclusive Countermovements
In response, trans‑inclusive feminists highlight that excluding trans women perpetuates the very binaries and coercive norms de Beauvoir sought to undo; they invoke her vision of overcoming rigid gender roles to support a feminism that transcends biological determinism  .
Conclusion
Simone de Beauvoir’s assertion that “women are made, not born” remains a vital provocation in contemporary debates over sex, gender, and identity. While right‑wing critics invoke a distorted biological essentialism to curtail trans rights, left‑wing and queer theorists build on de Beauvoir to champion an inclusive, intersectional feminism. The ongoing dialogues between gender‑critical and trans‑inclusive perspectives underscore the continuing relevance of de Beauvoir’s critique of patriarchy and her call to recognize the constructed nature of gender as a pathway to emancipation.
#2 “…This conflation ignores the scientific consensus that gender identity is a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and social factors.
- The comparison of gender dysphoria to anorexia is flawed. Anorexia is a mental illness with harmful physical consequences, whereas gender-affirming care is medically recognized as beneficial for trans individuals. …”
There isn’t consensus — and gender affirming may absolutely be medical malpractice with life altering harmful consequences. This is not opinion, but borne out by the Cass report. Your scree - well, it’s just #2 💩
I understand what you are saying.
So because some humans have different numbers of digits, you don't believe humans have 10 fingers and toes??? There's a spectrum in digits as well... For the sake of the "inter-digited" amongst us, you're going to say that you don't know how many fingers a human has, because it's a spectrum??? Since when did exceptions invalidate a norm? And your 1.7% is out by several orders of magnitude... Nobody in their right mind is claiming that a female with Turner's syndrome is not a woman... Except you (are you in your right mind?)
You make a valid point.
That took a long time to write
Your statement makes no sense.
Sorry, I did not mean to say that. I was being silly.
I am aware of that. I do not even suggest my opinion, be assured.
Also choice of material critiqued will not affect outcome.
False information is exactly that.
The court ruling is the court ruling, it does not mean that I have to agree.
Yes, I’ve checked it out, much the same.
Thank goodness you don’t descend into inflammatory rhetoric.
Happy Easter.
Exactly.
I have not used polemic by the way.
That is merely your take.
So, I've been pondering this topic lately. I feel that a big error in argument that people from both sides of this debate are making (perhaps some have even been doing this purposely) is conflating two separate concepts.
One is the scientific/biological concept of reproductive gender. Which, as Dawkins has pointed out many times, is defined by reproductive cell type/size and is defined in the same way across the animal kingdom and even in the plant kingdom.
The second is the cultural concept of gender. This idea is a cultural construct. It has little to do with scientific fact. For example, in the past, the cultural concept of 'female' included the ideas that women were illogical and unreliable, and should not wear pants. Our modern cultural concept has changed and now many women wear pants and are generally accepted as fully logical human beings.
I think a cultural construct can change and be adapted as culture changes. Trans people can redefine their genders in this sense. Biological gender, however, is not changeable.
As we discuss updating our cultural concepts around gender, I think people should avoid using arguments based on biological gender to narrowly define and categorize cultural gender. It is a cultural construct! It is malleable. At the same time, people on the side of trans rights should not conflate their cultural experience of gender with biological gender. Their experiences and feelings are valid but cultural gender roles and concepts are not the same as biology. I think people on both sides of this issue have made unfair arguments and accusations.
Emily, "gender" may be a cultural concept but so is gender ideology. Transgenderism only enforces the idea that there are wrong ways to be a boy or a girl.
We can not make laws and policies based on someone's "perceptions," only reality itself.
We do not require everyone to exclaim it's cold and wear coats just because a little old person somewhere is cold. They can wear a coat, sure, but 80⁰ is 80⁰ and the rest of us should not be required to say it's cold and turn up our thermostats in fear of offending.
By your argument, it seems you should also avoid defining being transgender as a wrong way to be a boy or a girl. Adults should be able to do what they want if they are not harming others.
If someone is cold, they should be able to turn their own thermostat to 80 without their neighbors complaining about it. It is only if they attempt to force their neighbors to set their thermostats to 80 that there would be an issue. Generally, I do not see trans people forcing others to change their lives. I agree there are a few cases of unfair sports competition that have been widely publicized and perhaps some people are aggressive about pronouns (I have not ever experienced this to be the case myself) but overall it seems to me trans people just want to live their lives. Being asked to use different pronouns is similar to being asked to use a nickname IMO, so it's not really a big deal. This is the only way my life has ever been impacted directly by a trans person.
You agreed with the 1st part of what I said but made it sound like you disagree. Lol. Your argument is not "clearer" or "more common sense." The last part of your argument is based on nothing but "your experience," which means nothing. It's a fact that every woman has been negatively impacted by trans-ideology whether they want to acknowledge it or not. Trans-identifying men have forced their way into womens and girls sex-based private spaces and even into our very identity. They are not women. In reality and in every science based definition of the word "male," even those with dsd's, they are men. They are men wearing woman face, it doesn't matter how they "feel."
Yes. I agree with your clearer more common sense balanced opinion.
Let’s say gender has now been redefined to be a social construct. That it no way changes the fact that sex is immutable and that in some areas of society, sex takes precedence. I’m thinking of areas such as sports, medicine, prisons, washrooms/change rooms, etc… where biological sex matters.
Right and I agree with that idea. That's what I mean by saying gender roles and concepts are not biology. By arguing that being trans is the same as being a biological gender people on the left on this issue are conflating the two categories.
Say you are a trans man. It is extremely unlikely you will be competitive on a cis men's sport team. The same is true for trans women -- they are not competing fairly in cis womens' sports. But the actual numbers of trans women competing in womens' sports is extremely low. So I think that people on the right of this issue are also guilty of conflating the issues in order to use the biological binary as an argument for completely shutting down the idea of trans gender people.
There is room on this issue for everyone. People can be trans without intruding on the rights of women. As a society, we can work on boundaries around this that are fair for everyone. To me, this court ruling seems like a decent start. In general, I like Dawkins, but as I have read him on his issue (not just in this particular piece, in general in his writing on this) i do feel like he is being dismissive of trans peoples' experiences and that he is often conflating social identity with biological identity to make his arguments.
The issue is not about shutting down trans rights. We’ve had trans people for ages and it wasn’t an issue until they started demanding that they be treated as the opposite sex in all areas and started claiming they were being discriminated and harmed by nasty transphobes if we didn’t acquiesce to their demands.
Richard Dawkins has repeatedly said that they should be treated with kindness and understanding and have the same rights to live as they please. But he has also said that their rights (as with everyone's rights) can’t override and take precedence over other people’s rights.
Okay.
The idea that Women are Physically weaker than Men is a misogynistic myth used by both men and women to perpetuate the socio-psycho-cultural role of the predominant genders. I would assert that Women are actually stronger than Men. Why / How ?
Women endure greater periods of physical stress in their lives, including regular menstruation, pregnancy, child birth, post pregnancy symptoms, and earlier menopause, all these things on top of their duties of work, domestic involvement and child rearing etc. They often maintain their physical well being through additional physical exercise, all this would be impossible for Men to endure.
Trans Gender people, undergo hormone treatment over a long period, they undergo surgery and special counseling as appropriate. They like everyone else are essentially physically and mentally unique. When everything is therefore taken into consideration, then, I do not see that there is a problem in Sport. Let these things be brought out into the open and it is a level pegging. What is unfair is when competitors take drugs to specifically enhance their performance capabilities above and beyond other competitors who play by the book.
As a physically weak Man I have no problem sharing a toilet with a Trans Gender which ever way they be. The main thing is that I need to use the loo and wash my hands (seems simple enough). Like a Woman I need to sit down when using the loo. Actually I would be quite happy to use a Women’s toilet if I saw the deplorable state of the Men’s toilet, a Trans would agree I am sure. As to Prisons, well, we know what the state of prisons has become. Prisoners should not have to share Prison Cells and facilities should be suitably and well designed on the basis of a civilized society providing dignity to all. Trans Gender Prisoners may be better accommodated within separate spaces (seems logical). Unfortunately Governments refuse to invest in Prisons, Education etc. so problems will occur. However we should understand that the number of Trans Gender Prisoners is incredibly small statistically, so, any problems could easily be dealt with, but only with a willingness from society and government.
So, we have Sport divided by the main genders.
Men’s Football.
Women’s Football
Cricket
Rugby
But, not so much in Tennis - Mixed Doubles ?
Darts ?
Chess ?
There are a huge number of hypocrisies floating around this world to do with gender.
Gender Politics and all that.
There is precedent for biological gender being a different category from social gender. The example of how women's social/cultural roles have changed though their underlying biology remained the same is one I used earlier. I would argue that the social definition of male gender is currently in the middle of a change. You can also see that these cultural definitions of gender vary from culture to culture around the world. For instance I am extremely grateful to be a woman in the western world where I am relatively free to wear pants and live life without being required by gender roles to wear certain types of clothing, etc.
Also, ones notion of freedom(s) is relative.
Not all Arab women feel imprisoned and are entirely happy wearing the full veil.
"I think a cultural construct can change and be adapted as culture changes." There are limits imposed by human nature. My wife is Thai, and she assures me that absolutely nobody in Thailand would say that a kathoey is "really" a woman, and they would think that you're crazy for doing so. The kathoey live (mostly) ordinary and free lives without making demands on language or women's rights, and without a constant need for validation from others.
(My definition of "gender": Culturally mediated behavioral phenotype normally indicative of sex.)
I agree there are obvious limits. A trans women cannot become pregnant for instance. A trans women will always have an athletic advantage over cis women.
IMO cultural concepts should always be based upon the reality of the world, but historically, they have not and are not. There are all sorts of ridiculous cultural ideas about women from the past and currently in many cultures that have no basis in reality or science. There are many damaging and scientifically unfounded ideas about what men are that are currently circulating. It is hypocritical to pretend our cultural gender norms should be based in science on this one issue while ignoring all the other gender norms that have no basis in science. If you evaluate our society it's pretty clear our gender norms are not based on science so the terms 'woman' or 'man' in many cultural instances should be considered a separate term, separately defined from the biological meaning.
I do think the boundaries around trans issues will have to be decided legally on an issue by issue basis because our legal framework is something that is both cultural and (hopefully) based on scientific facts. I think this particular court case is a good example of setting a fairly narrow legal definition around this issue. (legal definition of gender is perhaps an additional separate term, so now we have 3!)
From my understanding it's a fairly narrow ruling that trans women are not legally women for the purposes of ensuring fair representation of women. Do you know, does it also rule that trans men are not men for the purpose of fair representation? Just curious, I haven't read the ruling itself, just reporting around it.
"It is hypocritical to pretend our cultural gender norms should be based in science on this one issue while ignoring all the other gender norms that have no basis in science." The main reality that gender roles will conform to is human nature and intuition. Social engineering meant to make it conform to scientific reality is secondary and the ability to do so is probably limited.
What do you mean when you say:
"There are all sorts of absurd cultural ideas about women, both past and present, in many cultures, that have no basis in fact or science. There are many harmful and scientifically unfounded ideas about male identity circulating today."
Maybe ‘Trans Gender Woman’ should be the accepted ‘label’ from all sides, documented (if socially necessary).
Maybe equally ‘Trans Gender Man’ ………
Coming with clear restrictions:
Trans Gender Woman can only compete with Women.
Trans Gender Man can only compete with Men.
Mixed Sex Sports - Well there’s no issue ?
Like Para Olympics <> Trans Gender Olympics - Wonderful ………
The point you make is understandable. And it is partially erroneous. A main argument in favor of genderist policies has been gender is IMMUTABLE and inherent. That's how you get "trans" children and "queer babies." As you note, conception of gender are mutable and fluid - not inherent and immutable. Even Judith Butler says so.
If people were willing to accept gender behavior fluidity and that gender roles or behavioral expectations - not sex - is a social ephermeral construct and stop the born in wrong bodies nonsense, we could come to conceptual agreement. We could see that for young lesbians especially, the allure of being treated as a man is a product of sexism and lesbophobia (real social constructs). We could accept that proto gay kids (male and female) are gay, not the opposite sex if we weren't sexist and lesbophobic.
And that would be a huge leap forward.
Well said
Is the cultural concept of gender a cultural construct and has little to do with scientific facts?
Trans men (MtF) don't suffer because in our society the wearing of skirts is reserved for women, but because of an incongruence between their perceived sex and their phenotype. Their perceived sex has to do with the psychological characteristics of sex, much more than with the social constructs perhaps capriciously associated with it (such as, for example, the wearing of skirts).
Gender, seen in this way, has cultural (random) and biological components, inscribed in the brain's architecture.
So, scientific facts have a lot to do with this.
An excellent piece, measured but impassioned. As RD rightly points out, the issue is not the tiny minority of people with gender dysphoria but rather their army of self-proclaimed saviours (or "allies" as they like to call themselves) who have turned what used to be a non-issue into a fundamentalist crusade, to the detriment of trans people themselves.
It's actually much bigger than that.
The institutions the left captured decades ago were the spearhead.
Yep, and all completely unnecessarily
Yes, women deserve a huge apology. No, you don't get to suggest that women now go easy on trans identified males. Narcissists don't feel "forlorn", they feel outraged at being denied and try to take revenge. This is a dangerous moment. There is nothing women can or should offer these exploitative abusers, and shame on you for suggesting it. Please spend some time trying to walk in our shoes, as the objectified victims and targets of a predatory mental-sexual disorder. It is not an evolutionarily beneficient phenomenon, it is a *disorder*, in two types, and they are both *dangerous* to the objects used as mimicry sources: that's us, the women.
If you doubt this, take a look at your comments, at "melvin" the chatgpt abuser and I don't know how many who are expressing angry sympathy with his idiotic bad faith aggression, which is a good sign of the mendacious self-centeredness with which these disordered people will proceed, then go to twitter and look at the deranged promises of violence against women to be committed in public restrooms, sports facilities, and so on.
Dark personality narcissists do not feel "sad". They feel killing rages. Please do not put any social pressure at all on women to be nice to these lunatics. Not all women know how to tell men adopting this pose how deeply inappropriate it is, so I am saying it on behalf of all.
Thank you for your past strength and truthful mind and writing and for it now!
Oh, I think a bit of crowing is well-earned.
Yes, I'm not a polite Brit like Richard.
Wow! But does this really mean the end of gender ideology in the Anglosphere? Lots of people are too deeply committed, especially those who have sacrificed their own children.
The protests today against the court decision are concerning. Fairness and compassion for all is absolutely necessary but misogyny appeared to be the dominant theme. Violent language was aimed at those who have upheld women’s rights such as JKR. Do these people, especially the women involved, have any idea of the history of women’s suffrage? Apparently not. Trans women (men) appear to have a willing army of handmaids, just as Margaret Atwood predicted.
What has Margaret Atwood got to do with it ?
Thank you Richard.
Thank you for persevering. 🙏🏻
Those school and college teachers who groomed children to adopt a new name behind parents backs need to apologise for their wickedness. Those social workers who offered accommodation to my 17 year old daughter under Section 20 because we would not say the lunatic pronouns and who caused my ex husband to have a stroke need to pay and I want more than apologies. We need a full public enquiry. They need to be confronted with their malevolence
My friend believed they had the wrong body pre-school.They didn't tell anyone until they were adult, when their absolute conviction and the hell of not being able to live their life as they needed to became too much to bear. You will never know them as "different" because they fully transitioned and lived their true life for 30 years. Grow up, recognise reality and have a bit of empathy.
That's the problem... By not telling anyone for years, they didn't get help! They needed therapy when they were a kid, instead of becoming entrenched and cemented into their way of thinking. And nobody is saying that someone can't have a fixed idea that they want to be something they can't have (hell, look at all the people buying lottery tickets)... Just that they'll always be a man living as a woman, totally fine if that's what they want to do, and that there's more to being a woman than living as a woman, or simply wanting to be a woman... There's some biology (usually involving xx chromosomes) required
Yes exactly.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to screen! TRANS WOMEN ARE MEEEEEEEEENNNNN! Especially to the creepy AGP in the female bathrooms.
NO RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T RESPECT ME!
Unless you’re trans because this is cruel. Rowling is hate filled and bigoted and deserves no apology. Threatening to kill anyone is not ok even if they are despised for their views. But a ‘victory’? I doubt many will see this as a victory. And fyi, I’m not talking about sports, I’m talking about the persecution of trans folks. Trans isn’t a fucking new fad for fucks sake, trans people have always been part of society.
Mostly, stop fucking telling others what to do. And probably stop thinking about other people’s genitals so much, it’s fucking creepy.