The Biology is The Biology is The Biology: The Biology of Sex is Digital. "Gender" has a Cultural Aspect. Many Are Confusing Themselves and Others About These Facts.
The Biology is The Biology is The Biology: The Biology of Sex is Digital. "Gender" has a Cultural Aspect. Many Are Confusing Themselves and Others About These Facts.
Chromosomes determine sex. The cultural phenomenon of self-determined gender does not undo inheritance of chromosomes. When the Dumbing Down of America is done, people won't know the difference.
"sex assigned at birth" - there the manipulative language already begins. It's not assigned, it's observed. Except in the very rare accident of nature case where it actually seems unclear.
But the game of those people is to turn the exception into what determines the rule. If there is a three-legged baby born, they might as well claim it's discrimination to say humans are a two-legged species, because of that one, let's call it what it is: birth defect.
They also pretend like "gender" would exist without sex existing first, which only exists because of reproduction and nothing else.
Then this nonsense of "gender" as something somehow separate in the mind, treated separately from everything else - an own mental entity somehow carved out / walled against the rest.
I see biological sex, and personality. Some part of personality is heritable, and some of it is pushed or shoved more in this or that direction by the underlying sex. Hence we see emergent concentration of personality facets in the distribution curves in two places (not 73), and nobody before this mess thought every man or every women are exactly the same - there was always a perception of a spectrum with regards to facets of personality - even if deviance from societal roles was once less accepted.
Where does "gender" as a thing on its own fit in there? Ah, right - nowhere, it's a completely superfluous concept that never had merit. They pretend that this abstraction actually was a thing by itself... and from there, pile on more and more garbage onto their hovering sky castle.
An individual’s sex is easily identified at birth simply by looking at genitals. If their genitals are deformed they can test DNA. If there is a ‘Y’ chromosome then they are name.
when conversing with people who insist on being PC about the new definition of gender as a preference rather than a biological state, I have shifted to saying XX and XY chromosome bearers (sorry, triple chromosome mutations, that's not properly inclusive.)
Thanks for speaking rationally on this subject. The phenomenon of "inclusivity" is really bizarre in its current extreme. I don't really care what consenting adults wish to call themselves - whatever floats their boat is fine with me. And if they feel the need to tell me their "pronouns" I'll do my best to remember and use them -- because I model the respect and tolerance I wish to see in the world. But the fact that academic institutions and the mainstream media are pushing an agenda that implies that you must adhere rigidly to their "inclusive" language in everything you say and do is insane. All this to accommodate a tiny fraction of our population (around 0.6% or less). It's a false flag. You can't possibly include everyone. Humans are way too unique. It's a never-ending virtue-signaling spiral downward. Making a choice outside the norm is fine and should be respected, but there also should be no expectation that the norm is going to change just because you did. The evolution of the English language is a beautiful and slow process, attempting to hijack and force this process is wrong.
Great piece. This, however, needs some development:
"The fear among conservatives that males (sex) who present their gender as female might abuse the confusion to take advantage of others is not unlike the association of fear of violent crime from one race or the other, depending on which country one is in, based on unwarranted generalizations about a group due to the actions of some of its members."
We ARE seeing some instances of people taking advantage of others using "trans" as a smoke screen. Thankfully, the numbers are small, but girls raped in bathrooms by trans-girls and women's prisons handing out condoms when tran-women inmates are present should be a clue that something is wrong.
You yourself did not receive the benefit of that constitutional protection when you were denied the waiver for books in 1987. The protection didn't play out in a real world scenario.
Generally agree with your analysis but strongly disagree with the quote you included from the Carter Center. I think “discrimination” is necessary in many areas, both public and private. For e.g., we use price discrimination in virtually all of our economic activities. Similarly, we discriminate all the time in our private lives and this is a good thing. E.g., my sons sleep in a different room than my daughters. I also teach my daughters more domestic skills and make my sons do more yardwork. Is this discrimination on the basis of sex? Absolutely.
Amen.
Justice used to be blind!
Agreed.
"sex assigned at birth" - there the manipulative language already begins. It's not assigned, it's observed. Except in the very rare accident of nature case where it actually seems unclear.
But the game of those people is to turn the exception into what determines the rule. If there is a three-legged baby born, they might as well claim it's discrimination to say humans are a two-legged species, because of that one, let's call it what it is: birth defect.
They also pretend like "gender" would exist without sex existing first, which only exists because of reproduction and nothing else.
Then this nonsense of "gender" as something somehow separate in the mind, treated separately from everything else - an own mental entity somehow carved out / walled against the rest.
I see biological sex, and personality. Some part of personality is heritable, and some of it is pushed or shoved more in this or that direction by the underlying sex. Hence we see emergent concentration of personality facets in the distribution curves in two places (not 73), and nobody before this mess thought every man or every women are exactly the same - there was always a perception of a spectrum with regards to facets of personality - even if deviance from societal roles was once less accepted.
Where does "gender" as a thing on its own fit in there? Ah, right - nowhere, it's a completely superfluous concept that never had merit. They pretend that this abstraction actually was a thing by itself... and from there, pile on more and more garbage onto their hovering sky castle.
💯
Boom!
Now scientists need to be brave and stop using "gender" when they actually mean "sex".
Seems very rational. Let's hope these views become more popular, James! I think they will.In fact, most people, even young ones, realize these truths.
An individual’s sex is easily identified at birth simply by looking at genitals. If their genitals are deformed they can test DNA. If there is a ‘Y’ chromosome then they are name.
Excellent points. Very well said. Thank you!
from a recent comment I left on a Facebook post:
when conversing with people who insist on being PC about the new definition of gender as a preference rather than a biological state, I have shifted to saying XX and XY chromosome bearers (sorry, triple chromosome mutations, that's not properly inclusive.)
Thanks for speaking rationally on this subject. The phenomenon of "inclusivity" is really bizarre in its current extreme. I don't really care what consenting adults wish to call themselves - whatever floats their boat is fine with me. And if they feel the need to tell me their "pronouns" I'll do my best to remember and use them -- because I model the respect and tolerance I wish to see in the world. But the fact that academic institutions and the mainstream media are pushing an agenda that implies that you must adhere rigidly to their "inclusive" language in everything you say and do is insane. All this to accommodate a tiny fraction of our population (around 0.6% or less). It's a false flag. You can't possibly include everyone. Humans are way too unique. It's a never-ending virtue-signaling spiral downward. Making a choice outside the norm is fine and should be respected, but there also should be no expectation that the norm is going to change just because you did. The evolution of the English language is a beautiful and slow process, attempting to hijack and force this process is wrong.
Great piece. This, however, needs some development:
"The fear among conservatives that males (sex) who present their gender as female might abuse the confusion to take advantage of others is not unlike the association of fear of violent crime from one race or the other, depending on which country one is in, based on unwarranted generalizations about a group due to the actions of some of its members."
We ARE seeing some instances of people taking advantage of others using "trans" as a smoke screen. Thankfully, the numbers are small, but girls raped in bathrooms by trans-girls and women's prisons handing out condoms when tran-women inmates are present should be a clue that something is wrong.
Brilliant essay — thank you!
You yourself did not receive the benefit of that constitutional protection when you were denied the waiver for books in 1987. The protection didn't play out in a real world scenario.
Generally agree with your analysis but strongly disagree with the quote you included from the Carter Center. I think “discrimination” is necessary in many areas, both public and private. For e.g., we use price discrimination in virtually all of our economic activities. Similarly, we discriminate all the time in our private lives and this is a good thing. E.g., my sons sleep in a different room than my daughters. I also teach my daughters more domestic skills and make my sons do more yardwork. Is this discrimination on the basis of sex? Absolutely.