For those citing science, I would ask what material facts are used to determine one’s gender identity. To hold up under scientific scrutiny, these criteria must be verifiable/falsifiable claims/characteristics and universally applicable (ie, not different standards for different people in different cultures/places). The answer is simple: There’s nothing there.
Gender identity (and by extension, transgender theory) is nothing more than recasting sexist stereotypes using different language. It is unfortunate that so many people have failed to recognize this and fallen for the “be nice” vibe underpinning the spread of this ideology, because at its core, it is not nice at all.
usmagrad87 — Seriously? You flee the room to protect your ears from hearing wrong words? Wow, your piety is impressive.
Also, those who blindly “follow the science” need to be aware that there is an enormous amount of bad science out there. Even without throwing politics into the mix science is hard, and there are so many ways to get things wrong, but when ideology is involved you need to be extra careful about trusting “The Science.”
For those who are interested in what the science concerning human sex and gender is, Forrest Valkai has a very nice exposition of the basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg
Chiefly: I concur. I also think that most “transphobes” (including me) believe that if you are an adult and you think your life would be better if you surgically modified your body and/or lived your life according to social norms not generally associated with the genitals you were born with, go ahead and fill your boots….but that does NOT mean you are actually a member of the other sex.
What I read in the cartoon: “you’re a genocidal NAZI” = “crazy”.
Could someone connect the dots here, to where we get to “science supports [something to do with transsexual]”, from “you’re a genocidal NAZI”? Does it seem more or less that
* if you have an erroneous perception of the realities of human sexuality, that might be corrected by a review of scientific literature, then
* you too need to be condemned as a genocidal NAZI until you repent?
@Bvereshagen — you said “…of the other sex.” That’s the unstated premise at the heart of the social conflict, right there. That statement implies that there are only two sexes, “this one” and “the other one.”
But sex and sexual identity is not a binary, nor a spectrum, nor a graph. It is a 4-dimensional matrix, at best. One’s sexual identity is the intersection of:
– your chromosomes
– your outward appearance (which isn’t always determined by your chromosomes)
– the gender you feel like you are (if any)
– the gender you are attracted to (if any)
– and any other factors I’m not thinking of off-the-cuff.
It is unfortunate that some people have and are being discriminated against, because they don’t fit into the “binary boxes.” In my opinion, such discrimination should stop. But we have seen in our (western) society how women and minorities have struggled to end the discrimination they have endured, and how much success they have achieved (substantial, but not complete). The nonbinary segment(s) of our society are just getting started on that journey, and some of them are…strident, to be sure. But their work is needed, because the discrimination under which they suffer is hurtful, and occasionally deadly, and they don’t deserve it.
It’s kind of pat, isn’t it? Our society recognizes two sexes, because we are mammals and that’s the basic model for mammals. It’s interesting to consider the grey areas around that, but it doesn’t leave society without this distinction – we’re still mammals, and our societies recognize that model.
This doesn’t mean that discrimination is justified, but it depends on what we’re talking about. Bvereshagen says “go ahead and fill your boots” (?), so you two are in agreement? Must he agree that someone can be whatever sex, by sewing on the appropriate genitals? If you don’t believe in the binary boxes, then I don’t see how you can really assert someone’s right to one of them anyway.
@Donn Cave — I don’t think there are any dots between what the science says and “you’re a NAZI!” J&M were caricaturing the kind of language that many strident activists use, in order to pull Barmaid’s leg and make their point.
But it’s hyperbole, I think. “You’re a genocidal NAZI!” seems to have simply devolved into a way to be hurtful and to shut down someone with whom you disagree.
(I’m a Yank, and we have had the unfortunate opportunity to discuss just what makes one a nazi for most of the year. I can’t wait for it to end.)
Donn Cave: I explicitly said that undergoing surgery or dressing and behaving in a certain way does NOT alter your actual sex. You should be free to do those things, but it doesn’t change your essential physiological nature.
The ultimate group identity of the West is the individual. It feels somehow tragic that an increasing number of people at an ever younger age should feel that a scalpel is needed to be accepted by either themselves, others or both.
Chiefly, thanks for the Forrest Valkai link. I think it was no mistake that they put the microphone on the table so the speaker’s arm waving and finger pounding could align with his speech. For an inhospitable listener, those thumps could be taken for direct jabs to the solar plexus. When I think of things I learned from biology, the first is the alternation of generations. Such is my dilemma: those who went before versus those we are left with.
Hey Author? How about you go look up some statistics on anti-trans violence. And listen to the anti-trans rhetoric that fuels it. And then tell me about how trans activists are “crazy” for thinking transphobes want to kill them.
In some nasty “red” US state, I saw a sticker on a pickup truck: “Kill your local pedophile” with a silhouette of a gangster-style execution. They didn’t mean pedophile, they meant gay and/or trans.
You don’t like comments of a racist, sexist, or homophobic nature? Good for you. Rethink this cartoon. Please. Trans people are actually dying for being trans, and allies are objecting to their deaths, and this cartoon makes fun of them.
After your long flirtation with Islamophobia, are you finally slipping into full blown transphobia? That figures, what with you being from TERF island and all.
Sex does not equal gender. Sex is biological: it is a matter of chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy. Its distribution is highly bimodal. Gender is psychosocial: it is a matter of thought, feeling, and custom. Its distribution is multidimensional. There are 2.05 sexes (including the rare intersexual), and 2^n genders. Sex is fated, gender is chosen. Neither should be enforced; not sex to respect necessity, nor gender to respect liberty. Confusing the two is a mistake.
Chiefy — Unlike usmagrad87 I think it’s important to understand the thinking of those you disagree with, so I took a look at your links, and I have to say I wasn’t impressed.
The Forrest Valkai video is tendentious advocacy science. First Valkai blasts through an array of facts about non-human species that are true, but utterly irrelevant to humans. So some species of fruit flies have more than two gamete types, and some lizards determine sex by temperature. OK, but what does that have to do with us? He then blasts through a list of human sexual variations and abnormalities, and makes a logical leap to conclude that everything is a spectrum and “We should not be afraid of these differences between cis and trans and gay and straight and whatever”. I’m sorry, but I don’t think this follows. Nothing Valkai said persuaded me that a six foot male with a dangling penis should be allowed into the girls locker room, provided he genuinely identifies as female, or that there isn’t something deeply wrong with a man who feels compelled to have himself castrated and hormonally remade so that he can pass as a woman.
Towards the end of his video Valkai plays one of the trans trump cards, the suicide issue, which can be paraphrased as “We demand you remake society to suit us, or else we’ll kill ourselves!” Your other link makes a similar argument, using violence instead of suicide. OK, first of all, are these claims true? Advocacy science is often untrustworthy. Here is an interesting article from Quillette that looks at claims that transgender people are disproportionately victims of murder, and finds that once you control for the fact that the victims are often sex workers — an extremely dangerous line of work! — you actually end up with a lower murder rate for transpeople. I encourage you to read the article with an open mind, the way I sat through the Valkai video.
But even if’s true that transpeople are subject to higher rates of suicide and violence, are we really obligated to totally overthrow the way we as a society think about sex in the hope that this might maybe somehow fix this one very specific social problem? Nope, sorry, I don’t see it. There have got to be other ways.
Donn Cave — I think the most accurate gloss might be something like this: “you’re a genocidal NAZI” = “We may not be able to cancel a popular billionaire like J. K. Rowling, but look at the trouble we’ve caused her and imagine what we could do to the likes of you if you don’t shut up.”
I’m perfectly happy to admit that I don’t really have much of a clue as to what you all are talking about – and I have a hunch this problem is not unique to me and is rather general to the discussion.
Jb, could you flesh out “totally overthrow the way we as a society think about sex”? I mean, in concrete terms.
Is it your example of welcoming physical men into spaces normally reserved for women? Would anyone care to say that an enlightened view of the matter calls for that, or else we’re setting things in motion that will cause transsexuals to be murdered in red states in the US?
How does society think about complete surgical transsexuals? — Before and after the total overthrow, please.
Donn Cave — Fair questions. By “totally overthrow the way we as a society think about sex” I mean that instead of categorizing people into two classes, male and female, according to their bodies, we are now to categorize people into an indefinite number of classes according to their “identities”, even if those identities directly conflict with the old system. Given how fundamental the male/female dichotomy has been to human society throughout history that’s pretty damn radical! Yes, men demanding access to women’s spaces is one issue, but there are others. For example, if it’s really true that “transwomen are women”, it follows that your son’s fiancee has no moral obligation to inform him that she used to be a guy. (And yes, that will happen). And then there is the whole issue of social contagion…
As for the situation when someone engages in extreme body modification to the point where they can successfully pass as the opposite sex, OK, that does confuse the issue (which is unfortunate in and of itself). I suppose it makes no sense to demand that a man who really honestly looks like a woman nevertheless should continue to use the men’s room (or vice versa). The whole point of having separate men’s and women’s rooms is the comfort of the users, and that would be uncomfortable. (Of course there is still the issue of freakish half-and-halfs, so I guess we may be forced to single occupant restrooms. OK, fine. but single occupant locker rooms are not an option, so what then? I dunno, I guess they just go to the men’s locker room and we wince and avert our gaze?)
Finally, I guess I just resent the demand that I celebrate serious mental disorder as normal human variation, just as I would resent being compelled to celebrate the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood. I just don’t think it’s true, and that matters to me.
Suppose a minimal, practical social adaptation, which as far as I know has already taken place:
* common recognition of male vs. female status, e.g. the WC, is operational: men have dicks, women don’t.
* interpresonal relations are as they have always been, left to persons to handle as well or as poorly as they may. Is your fiancée obliged to tell you if she’s infertile? Etc.
It’s pretty much the current situation, isn’t it? Are transsexuals dying because that isn’t enough? What’s the deal here? Pardon me for being a clueless old person who hasn’t been keeping up with transsexual troubles.
Working in I.T.and in H.R. , current contract. Australian HR are seriously arguing about how many entries the sex/gender picklist should have and also a free format 1000 character “indentifies as” field snd that both of these choices should be subjected to a set of scheduling parameters, so that you can be a frog on Monday, a bat tuesday, a wardrobe wednesday….I kid you not…
Well, obviously one wouldn’t want to “hard code” that stuff. They’ll like to be able to change it any time they want. I assume these attiibutes have no bearing on anything else.
Donn Cave — I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to get at. I’ve addressed some of your points already. I am not convinced that the threat of violence to trans people is anywhere near what activists claim, but even if it is I don’t see how that obligates us to overturn millennia of social custom. And I’ve acknowledged that some accommodation will need to be made for those who have radically transformed their bodies. (Although some people with dicks will insist on using the lady’s room anyway. Whether or not that sort of behavior is common, one goal of trans-activists is to ensure that if it does happen there is no legal recourse).
Your equation of transgenderism with infertility is particularly off-putting. They’re not equally worrying. If I discovered my wife was infertile after we got married I would be sad. If I discovered she had concealed this from me I would be quite angry. But if I were to discover she was really a man I would be shattered. Now you might tut-tut and tell me I shouldn’t feel that way, but who are you to tell me how I should feel? I would feel that way, with or without your approval! So would many others. (In fact my understanding is that a significant portion of the violence directed at trans women occurs when their boyfriends learn the truth about them. That doesn’t justify violence, but it does help explain it).
I think the argument you are indirectly making goes something like this: “Civilization won’t collapse if you give us the sweeping social changes we are demanding, therefore you must give them to us”. And no, civilization (probably) won’t collapse, but also no, we don’t have to give them to you. Aside from my unwillingness to deny what I see as reality, I also see the potential for very real harm. Nobody claims that anorexics are “born that way;” it’s understood to be a very specific response to social pressures and expectations, a response that is unknown in many cultures. If it’s true that the recent increase in trans identification in teenage girls — often girls with autism or other mental issues — is a similar response to social cues, and girls who would otherwise have grown out of it are — at whatever age — getting mastectomies and sterilizing themselves with hormones because they have been led to believe that they are really boys, wouldn’t you agree that this would be a bad consequence of transgender ideology? I’m not asking whether you believe it’s true or not, I’m asking you to acknowledge that if true it would be really, really bad. If you respond to nothing else I’ve written, I would be interested in seeing your answer to this question.
Finally, the cartoon clearly does relate to something real. I’ve seen that sort of insane rhetoric in print and on screen many times. If you think it carries no weight you might want to talk to J. K. Rowling about it, as well as numerous others who have been harassed and even lost jobs for expressing a disfavored opinion. It’s real!
No, not at all. I’m not calling for you to have one reaction or another to surprise facts about your wife. I’m just saying, that isn’t in society’s purview. It doesn’t have anything to do with me, or anyone else besides you and your hypothetical wife. Societal change can happen in this way, but as the aggregate of individual behavior, which is different from the adoption of dogma you apparently argue against.
I personally am skeptical of the gender dysphoria thing, and I suspect it may be as much an unfortunate side effect of societal ill health as a natural thing. But like a lot of things that get into young people’s heads, making a culture war out of it isn’t effective. We should have some guard rails, like not supporting irreversible measures for under-age, but acknowledge that there’s little we can do to if someone’s really determined. The culture war approach allows “their side” to line up with tolerance, science, etc. in other areas, and that’s very bad news for you.
What I think I’m seeing is two sides of that culture war. “You’re transphobic, I’m out of here”, “you’re ignorant of science”, “transphobia kills”, etc., vs. “trans activism is destroying our young people.” These are views that whether they have any truth behind them or not, can also be mocked with cartoons when they get out of hand. Good cartoons are to some extent an antidote to culture wars, this one just kind of whizzed past me.
Donn Cave — In the words of JRR Tolkien (or maybe Peter Jackson): “open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not”. It seems to me that fighting a culture war is better than simply giving up and losing one. Wouldn’t you agree that if an aggressive quasi-religious social movement is trying to impose changes on society that you think are bad, the appropriate thing to do is resist? That’s all I’m doing. Your objection seems to be that resistance is futile, and I should just accept the new dispensation and make the best of it (e.g., hoping for “guard rails”). But I don’t think resistance is futile, and even if it is, I would rather fight and lose than surrender without fighting.
Also, you didn’t really answer the question I asked in my previous comment:
Nobody claims that anorexics are “born that way;” it’s understood to be a very specific response to social pressures and expectations, a response that is unknown in many cultures. If it’s true that the recent increase in trans identification in teenage girls — often girls with autism or other mental issues — is a similar response to social cues, and girls who would otherwise have grown out of it are — at whatever age — getting mastectomies and sterilizing themselves with hormones because they have been led to believe that they are really boys, wouldn’t you agree that this would be a bad consequence of transgender ideology? I’m not asking whether you believe it’s true or not, I’m asking you to acknowledge that if true it would be really, really bad.
I’d still be interested in a straightforward answer.
No, to be clear (and really it seems to me I was fairly clear), I think it’s worse than futile. Worse for people you care about.
But carry on. I’m still going on conjecture to a great extent, as to what you and others are actually up to. I only aim to provoke some thought. As Sun Tzu wrote,
t is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the
evils of war that can thoroughly understand the prof-
itable way of carrying it on.
The majority of violence is perpetrated by young men on one another, violence against children, women and indeed trans is very much to a lesser extent. Until ALL violence is equated as unnecessary then the argument is lost…
Donn Cave — I have to say I am kind of startled by your answer. I asked a very narrow question: IF it is true that transgender ideology is leading troubled girls to a body dysmorphic disorder akin to anorexia, THEN wouldn’t that be a bad thing? You might have answered “Yes, I agree it would be bad, but I don’t believe it is happening”. Or you might have said something like “Yes it would be bad, but even if it is happening their sacrifice is worth it, because opposing transgenderism will lead to even worse”. Maybe the latter is what you meant; if so please let me know, because it sounds like you are unwilling to give an inch and acknowledge that hundreds or thousands of unnecessary and irreversible body modifications would even be bad.
When activists are winning they like to portray their success as inevitable, and resistance as futile as pushing back against the tide, but I believe resistance to what you see as bad ideas is always justified. You talk about “conjecturing” as to what I and the others “are actually up to”. I think I’m a pretty straightforward guy actually, but I’m beginning to conjecture that rather than being a “clueless old person hasn’t been keeping up with transsexual troubles”, you actually have strongly held opinions on the matter that you have been keeping to yourself. At the very least, could you explain why opposing transgender ideology is “worse than futile”? What exactly will be “worse for people you care about”, and why will opposition to transgenderism lead to that worse outcome?
That some of us genuinely feel (for genuinely good reasons) that we don’t fit neatly within the binary gendered mainstream world view, and find the dissonance between how we are perceived by others and how we feel about ourselves distressing seems uncontroversial.
What seems less clear cut to me is where the burden of that dissonance belongs
What does the wider world owe those few of us who are subject to this problem? Do the rest of us give up the utility of simple distinctions and language that works for the overwhelming majority of situations? Should the rest of us assume the burden of dissonance by using language that feels like a false match to our perceptions?
What are the wider consequences to society of widespread habituation to saying that which feels expedient but not truthful – whether the motives are good or otherwise?
Does being nominally described by others in the manner we prefer lead to better outcomes, if we also know that this language is often not intended for accuracy in the mind of the speaker, but is rather to make us feel comfortable, or even just to avoid adverse social sanctions to the speaker? Could that awareness become corrosive
Does tolerance really require more than just being happy for others to get on and do their own thing? Is active participation and personal compromise or effort in fostering other people’s agendas and views now required to avoid accusations of intolerance?
Jb, what I wrote above that I hoped you would read: “The culture war approach allows “their side” to line up with tolerance, science, etc. in other areas, and that’s very bad news for you..”
Hence my disclaimer about what you’re actually up to. That’s a tactical issue, and it certainly applies to a lot of public opposition various transgender issues, but … It is not only all to possible to make things worse, it’s the typical purpose of these struggles, as the parties involved usually have other aims that benefit from political division.
As for trying to fight with me over “transgender ideology” … I’m not interested.
Well played Author. After years of taking the piss out religious nutters, including the homicidal ones, you’ve had a tilt at the worst discourse on the internet.
Of course if you want to bring out the really unhinged, have a crack at Taylor Swift…
ArchPrime — You’ve hit the nail on the head. How do we deal with such people? There is a wide range of possibilities, from “Burn the witches!” to “Kneel before diversity!”. My own feeling is that gender nonconformity is undesirable and should be discouraged, but that it’s not the worst thing in the world either and society has to allow a space for it. The nature and extent of this space is open to debate, but one thing I believe strongly is that children need to be kept as far away from the debate as possible. I don’t want second graders whispering to each other that maybe they were born in the wrong body, and if they were the doctors can fix it.
One of the hooks you will find in that bait, in the US, is the right wing Christian nationalist faction behind Project 2025 wherein “transgender ideology” is equated with pornography. They need you to go for that bait hard, so they can reel you in with their uncompromising stand on it. Do they think they’re going to save any children? I doubt very much they give a shit about that. Their object is to get us to pick a side on the basis of something we don’t know very much about, so they can define the terrain.
One of my big reservations about transgender would best be put as:
What is wrong with just being a man who likes doing lots of ‘feminine’ stuff or a woman who likes doing lots of ‘masculine stuff’.
Trans seems to by into lots of BS about X being things for women to do/wear, and Y being things for men to do/wear. But rather that say it is BS they go for insisting that someone who likes X must be a woman and someone who likes Y must be a man regardless of anatomy.
I don’t really care about the ideology behind the LGBTXyz…lobby loonies. I am concerned from a philosophical and logical stance that you are allowed to shut down any argument with the post-modern bullshit of “All truths are valid”, thus, If I say I’m a woman then I am a woman, my truth must be true….all other states do not apply….end of…
An obnoxious, notorious scuzzbucket,
Who hails from the isle of Nantucket,
Wants me to say
Their pronoun is they,
So I told them, ok then, well, fuck it.
I see that no one has replied to nor addressed paradoctor’s short comment. Sex and gender are two separate concepts. Sex is biological, while gender is psychosocial.
This comment section is filled with reactionary and confused comments by people who haven’t taken the time to engage with what it means to be transgender, nor delve into educational materials about the subject.
For an analogy about just one of these sub-topics: My wife is a tomboy. She is a woman who likes doing sterotypically boyish things. She is a biological (AFAB) female who also has an internal sense of her womanhood. She is not trans. If she had an internal sense of being a man (gender identity), then she would be trans.
I’m a biological male (AMAB) I have an internal sense of being a man. I am not trans. I like to paint my nails. That doesn’t make me a woman. If I had an internal sense of being a woman (gender identity) then I would be trans.
No trans people are insisting that activities or modes of dress (gender expression) constitutes a category of gender. Do those things that you want to do. No matter the sex or gender: dress how you like. But also respect one’s internal understanding of their gender.
Feel free to ask any clarifying questions. I conduct trainings on this topic for a respected institution.
All the transgenders getting pissed off here really makes me laugh. At least I as a Christian don’t consider my beliefs at all scientific and am able to laugh at how strange my beliefs are, why can’t they?
And another thing: transgender ideology is mainly based on the “findings” of pedophile John Money during his experiment raising a young boy with a mutilated penis as female. During these “experiments” he made the young boys sexually molest each other.
Skrynesaver – how is it hate? If calling trans-activists crazy is hateful towards them, doesn’t that mean this comic has been hateful from the start, but to Christians & Muslims?
In addition, this “hate” towards transgenderism is probably less common among atheists than Christians & Muslims, so speaking about an atheism-to-hate pipeline in this context doesn’t make much sense.
misterexist – a lot of people are familiar that your tribe make a distinction between “sex” and “gender” – and simply reject the idea that something mental should define whether one is a man/boy or woman/girl, rather than sex.
Chris Phoenix — After looking at the stats, I’ve realised the murder stats simply do not support the idea that trans people are at a higher risk of being murdered. At least in the US & the UK.
I don’t deny that there have been people murdered for being trans. However there have also been plenty of people murdered for their religious views. Does that mean it’s not OK to make fun of religions as this comic has done from the start?
Chiefly — you assert most trans people want a shot at living peacefully – but does would this not apply to most Christians/Muslims? Would this mean it is wrong to mock Christianity & Islam like this comic does inherently?
However, does insisting others affirm their gender identities count as living peacefully? An analogy to preferred pronouns would be a Muslim insisting you say “Peace Be Upon Him” every time after Muhammad’s name. Would you consider this acceptable? Even though Muhammad comes up a lot less than 3rd-person singular pronouns so it’s much less of a demand?
Anonymous3 — is it a “phobia” to dislike Islam? What about Christianity? If you really liked Islam, would you really consider opposition to transgenderism a bad thing? Muhammad is recorded as having some choice words to say about people who imitated the opposite sex.
paradoctor — if by “gender” you mean whether one is a woman/girl or man/boy, many reject that it should be made different from sex. What is n here?
There are only two sexes in humans, the rare individuals (it’s a lot less than the commonly stated 1.7% figure) who are difficult to classify as male or female are not another sex.
If “gender” is a matter of choice, why should that choice be protected by anti-discrimination law? Should the choice to pretend to be a difference race, age, species etc. be likewise protected? Does liberty not mean people should have the choice to not affirm trans identities?
Vinnie Vidivici — imagine if we applied your logic to categories other than sex.
For instance: One’s age identity is the intersection of:
– how long ago you were born
– your outward appearance
– the age you feel like you are (if any)
– the age you are attracted to (if any)
– and any other factors I’m not thinking of off-the-cuff.\
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
September 9, 2009
Good one, Author.
Crazier than Jesus and Mo. That takes real dedication.
Goodbye. I follow the science and not transphobia.
True, they are.
(I like the fact that the comic occasionally lets Jesus and Mo talk sense).
why do you deny science in this area?
For those citing science, I would ask what material facts are used to determine one’s gender identity. To hold up under scientific scrutiny, these criteria must be verifiable/falsifiable claims/characteristics and universally applicable (ie, not different standards for different people in different cultures/places). The answer is simple: There’s nothing there.
Gender identity (and by extension, transgender theory) is nothing more than recasting sexist stereotypes using different language. It is unfortunate that so many people have failed to recognize this and fallen for the “be nice” vibe underpinning the spread of this ideology, because at its core, it is not nice at all.
usmagrad87 — Seriously? You flee the room to protect your ears from hearing wrong words? Wow, your piety is impressive.
Also, those who blindly “follow the science” need to be aware that there is an enormous amount of bad science out there. Even without throwing politics into the mix science is hard, and there are so many ways to get things wrong, but when ideology is involved you need to be extra careful about trusting “The Science.”
I’m sure that some “trans activists” are “crazy”, but I would think that most actual trans people just want to have a shot at living peacefully. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
For those who are interested in what the science concerning human sex and gender is, Forrest Valkai has a very nice exposition of the basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg
This should be a good one! I’m going to go get some beer and popcorn!
Chiefly: I concur. I also think that most “transphobes” (including me) believe that if you are an adult and you think your life would be better if you surgically modified your body and/or lived your life according to social norms not generally associated with the genitals you were born with, go ahead and fill your boots….but that does NOT mean you are actually a member of the other sex.
What I read in the cartoon: “you’re a genocidal NAZI” = “crazy”.
Could someone connect the dots here, to where we get to “science supports [something to do with transsexual]”, from “you’re a genocidal NAZI”? Does it seem more or less that
* if you have an erroneous perception of the realities of human sexuality, that might be corrected by a review of scientific literature, then
* you too need to be condemned as a genocidal NAZI until you repent?
@Bvereshagen — you said “…of the other sex.” That’s the unstated premise at the heart of the social conflict, right there. That statement implies that there are only two sexes, “this one” and “the other one.”
But sex and sexual identity is not a binary, nor a spectrum, nor a graph. It is a 4-dimensional matrix, at best. One’s sexual identity is the intersection of:
– your chromosomes
– your outward appearance (which isn’t always determined by your chromosomes)
– the gender you feel like you are (if any)
– the gender you are attracted to (if any)
– and any other factors I’m not thinking of off-the-cuff.
It is unfortunate that some people have and are being discriminated against, because they don’t fit into the “binary boxes.” In my opinion, such discrimination should stop. But we have seen in our (western) society how women and minorities have struggled to end the discrimination they have endured, and how much success they have achieved (substantial, but not complete). The nonbinary segment(s) of our society are just getting started on that journey, and some of them are…strident, to be sure. But their work is needed, because the discrimination under which they suffer is hurtful, and occasionally deadly, and they don’t deserve it.
It’s kind of pat, isn’t it? Our society recognizes two sexes, because we are mammals and that’s the basic model for mammals. It’s interesting to consider the grey areas around that, but it doesn’t leave society without this distinction – we’re still mammals, and our societies recognize that model.
This doesn’t mean that discrimination is justified, but it depends on what we’re talking about. Bvereshagen says “go ahead and fill your boots” (?), so you two are in agreement? Must he agree that someone can be whatever sex, by sewing on the appropriate genitals? If you don’t believe in the binary boxes, then I don’t see how you can really assert someone’s right to one of them anyway.
@Donn Cave — I don’t think there are any dots between what the science says and “you’re a NAZI!” J&M were caricaturing the kind of language that many strident activists use, in order to pull Barmaid’s leg and make their point.
But it’s hyperbole, I think. “You’re a genocidal NAZI!” seems to have simply devolved into a way to be hurtful and to shut down someone with whom you disagree.
(I’m a Yank, and we have had the unfortunate opportunity to discuss just what makes one a nazi for most of the year. I can’t wait for it to end.)
Donn Cave: I explicitly said that undergoing surgery or dressing and behaving in a certain way does NOT alter your actual sex. You should be free to do those things, but it doesn’t change your essential physiological nature.
The ultimate group identity of the West is the individual. It feels somehow tragic that an increasing number of people at an ever younger age should feel that a scalpel is needed to be accepted by either themselves, others or both.
Chiefly, thanks for the Forrest Valkai link. I think it was no mistake that they put the microphone on the table so the speaker’s arm waving and finger pounding could align with his speech. For an inhospitable listener, those thumps could be taken for direct jabs to the solar plexus. When I think of things I learned from biology, the first is the alternation of generations. Such is my dilemma: those who went before versus those we are left with.
Hey Author? How about you go look up some statistics on anti-trans violence. And listen to the anti-trans rhetoric that fuels it. And then tell me about how trans activists are “crazy” for thinking transphobes want to kill them.
In some nasty “red” US state, I saw a sticker on a pickup truck: “Kill your local pedophile” with a silhouette of a gangster-style execution. They didn’t mean pedophile, they meant gay and/or trans.
You don’t like comments of a racist, sexist, or homophobic nature? Good for you. Rethink this cartoon. Please. Trans people are actually dying for being trans, and allies are objecting to their deaths, and this cartoon makes fun of them.
After your long flirtation with Islamophobia, are you finally slipping into full blown transphobia? That figures, what with you being from TERF island and all.
Sex does not equal gender. Sex is biological: it is a matter of chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy. Its distribution is highly bimodal. Gender is psychosocial: it is a matter of thought, feeling, and custom. Its distribution is multidimensional. There are 2.05 sexes (including the rare intersexual), and 2^n genders. Sex is fated, gender is chosen. Neither should be enforced; not sex to respect necessity, nor gender to respect liberty. Confusing the two is a mistake.
See! I said this was going to be a good one!
Chiefy — Unlike usmagrad87 I think it’s important to understand the thinking of those you disagree with, so I took a look at your links, and I have to say I wasn’t impressed.
The Forrest Valkai video is tendentious advocacy science. First Valkai blasts through an array of facts about non-human species that are true, but utterly irrelevant to humans. So some species of fruit flies have more than two gamete types, and some lizards determine sex by temperature. OK, but what does that have to do with us? He then blasts through a list of human sexual variations and abnormalities, and makes a logical leap to conclude that everything is a spectrum and “We should not be afraid of these differences between cis and trans and gay and straight and whatever”. I’m sorry, but I don’t think this follows. Nothing Valkai said persuaded me that a six foot male with a dangling penis should be allowed into the girls locker room, provided he genuinely identifies as female, or that there isn’t something deeply wrong with a man who feels compelled to have himself castrated and hormonally remade so that he can pass as a woman.
Towards the end of his video Valkai plays one of the trans trump cards, the suicide issue, which can be paraphrased as “We demand you remake society to suit us, or else we’ll kill ourselves!” Your other link makes a similar argument, using violence instead of suicide. OK, first of all, are these claims true? Advocacy science is often untrustworthy. Here is an interesting article from Quillette that looks at claims that transgender people are disproportionately victims of murder, and finds that once you control for the fact that the victims are often sex workers — an extremely dangerous line of work! — you actually end up with a lower murder rate for transpeople. I encourage you to read the article with an open mind, the way I sat through the Valkai video.
But even if’s true that transpeople are subject to higher rates of suicide and violence, are we really obligated to totally overthrow the way we as a society think about sex in the hope that this might maybe somehow fix this one very specific social problem? Nope, sorry, I don’t see it. There have got to be other ways.
Donn Cave — I think the most accurate gloss might be something like this: “you’re a genocidal NAZI” = “We may not be able to cancel a popular billionaire like J. K. Rowling, but look at the trouble we’ve caused her and imagine what we could do to the likes of you if you don’t shut up.”
I’m perfectly happy to admit that I don’t really have much of a clue as to what you all are talking about – and I have a hunch this problem is not unique to me and is rather general to the discussion.
Jb, could you flesh out “totally overthrow the way we as a society think about sex”? I mean, in concrete terms.
Is it your example of welcoming physical men into spaces normally reserved for women? Would anyone care to say that an enlightened view of the matter calls for that, or else we’re setting things in motion that will cause transsexuals to be murdered in red states in the US?
How does society think about complete surgical transsexuals? — Before and after the total overthrow, please.
Donn Cave — Fair questions. By “totally overthrow the way we as a society think about sex” I mean that instead of categorizing people into two classes, male and female, according to their bodies, we are now to categorize people into an indefinite number of classes according to their “identities”, even if those identities directly conflict with the old system. Given how fundamental the male/female dichotomy has been to human society throughout history that’s pretty damn radical! Yes, men demanding access to women’s spaces is one issue, but there are others. For example, if it’s really true that “transwomen are women”, it follows that your son’s fiancee has no moral obligation to inform him that she used to be a guy. (And yes, that will happen). And then there is the whole issue of social contagion…
As for the situation when someone engages in extreme body modification to the point where they can successfully pass as the opposite sex, OK, that does confuse the issue (which is unfortunate in and of itself). I suppose it makes no sense to demand that a man who really honestly looks like a woman nevertheless should continue to use the men’s room (or vice versa). The whole point of having separate men’s and women’s rooms is the comfort of the users, and that would be uncomfortable. (Of course there is still the issue of freakish half-and-halfs, so I guess we may be forced to single occupant restrooms. OK, fine. but single occupant locker rooms are not an option, so what then? I dunno, I guess they just go to the men’s locker room and we wince and avert our gaze?)
Finally, I guess I just resent the demand that I celebrate serious mental disorder as normal human variation, just as I would resent being compelled to celebrate the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood. I just don’t think it’s true, and that matters to me.
Suppose a minimal, practical social adaptation, which as far as I know has already taken place:
* common recognition of male vs. female status, e.g. the WC, is operational: men have dicks, women don’t.
* interpresonal relations are as they have always been, left to persons to handle as well or as poorly as they may. Is your fiancée obliged to tell you if she’s infertile? Etc.
It’s pretty much the current situation, isn’t it? Are transsexuals dying because that isn’t enough? What’s the deal here? Pardon me for being a clueless old person who hasn’t been keeping up with transsexual troubles.
To put it another way, the cartoon could be more funny if it clearly related to something more or less significantly real. Does it?
Working in I.T.and in H.R. , current contract. Australian HR are seriously arguing about how many entries the sex/gender picklist should have and also a free format 1000 character “indentifies as” field snd that both of these choices should be subjected to a set of scheduling parameters, so that you can be a frog on Monday, a bat tuesday, a wardrobe wednesday….I kid you not…
They did agree that minimum time period should be days of week and not to be able to change gender every hour….
Yes. The lunatics have taken over the Asylum…
Well, obviously one wouldn’t want to “hard code” that stuff. They’ll like to be able to change it any time they want. I assume these attiibutes have no bearing on anything else.
I was chatting to my friend in Iran, he asked me to send this comment which you can publish.
Pure filth.
Ayattolah K
Best Wishes
Malcolm
Donn Cave — I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to get at. I’ve addressed some of your points already. I am not convinced that the threat of violence to trans people is anywhere near what activists claim, but even if it is I don’t see how that obligates us to overturn millennia of social custom. And I’ve acknowledged that some accommodation will need to be made for those who have radically transformed their bodies. (Although some people with dicks will insist on using the lady’s room anyway. Whether or not that sort of behavior is common, one goal of trans-activists is to ensure that if it does happen there is no legal recourse).
Your equation of transgenderism with infertility is particularly off-putting. They’re not equally worrying. If I discovered my wife was infertile after we got married I would be sad. If I discovered she had concealed this from me I would be quite angry. But if I were to discover she was really a man I would be shattered. Now you might tut-tut and tell me I shouldn’t feel that way, but who are you to tell me how I should feel? I would feel that way, with or without your approval! So would many others. (In fact my understanding is that a significant portion of the violence directed at trans women occurs when their boyfriends learn the truth about them. That doesn’t justify violence, but it does help explain it).
I think the argument you are indirectly making goes something like this: “Civilization won’t collapse if you give us the sweeping social changes we are demanding, therefore you must give them to us”. And no, civilization (probably) won’t collapse, but also no, we don’t have to give them to you. Aside from my unwillingness to deny what I see as reality, I also see the potential for very real harm. Nobody claims that anorexics are “born that way;” it’s understood to be a very specific response to social pressures and expectations, a response that is unknown in many cultures. If it’s true that the recent increase in trans identification in teenage girls — often girls with autism or other mental issues — is a similar response to social cues, and girls who would otherwise have grown out of it are — at whatever age — getting mastectomies and sterilizing themselves with hormones because they have been led to believe that they are really boys, wouldn’t you agree that this would be a bad consequence of transgender ideology? I’m not asking whether you believe it’s true or not, I’m asking you to acknowledge that if true it would be really, really bad. If you respond to nothing else I’ve written, I would be interested in seeing your answer to this question.
Finally, the cartoon clearly does relate to something real. I’ve seen that sort of insane rhetoric in print and on screen many times. If you think it carries no weight you might want to talk to J. K. Rowling about it, as well as numerous others who have been harassed and even lost jobs for expressing a disfavored opinion. It’s real!
No, not at all. I’m not calling for you to have one reaction or another to surprise facts about your wife. I’m just saying, that isn’t in society’s purview. It doesn’t have anything to do with me, or anyone else besides you and your hypothetical wife. Societal change can happen in this way, but as the aggregate of individual behavior, which is different from the adoption of dogma you apparently argue against.
I personally am skeptical of the gender dysphoria thing, and I suspect it may be as much an unfortunate side effect of societal ill health as a natural thing. But like a lot of things that get into young people’s heads, making a culture war out of it isn’t effective. We should have some guard rails, like not supporting irreversible measures for under-age, but acknowledge that there’s little we can do to if someone’s really determined. The culture war approach allows “their side” to line up with tolerance, science, etc. in other areas, and that’s very bad news for you.
What I think I’m seeing is two sides of that culture war. “You’re transphobic, I’m out of here”, “you’re ignorant of science”, “transphobia kills”, etc., vs. “trans activism is destroying our young people.” These are views that whether they have any truth behind them or not, can also be mocked with cartoons when they get out of hand. Good cartoons are to some extent an antidote to culture wars, this one just kind of whizzed past me.
Alice Dreger is the Author to read…
… and now for my unvarnished comment, J&M is far-and-away the very best at pasquinading religion.
The world’s only declared nullifidian – Malcolm Dodd
Donn Cave — In the words of JRR Tolkien (or maybe Peter Jackson): “open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not”. It seems to me that fighting a culture war is better than simply giving up and losing one. Wouldn’t you agree that if an aggressive quasi-religious social movement is trying to impose changes on society that you think are bad, the appropriate thing to do is resist? That’s all I’m doing. Your objection seems to be that resistance is futile, and I should just accept the new dispensation and make the best of it (e.g., hoping for “guard rails”). But I don’t think resistance is futile, and even if it is, I would rather fight and lose than surrender without fighting.
Also, you didn’t really answer the question I asked in my previous comment:
Nobody claims that anorexics are “born that way;” it’s understood to be a very specific response to social pressures and expectations, a response that is unknown in many cultures. If it’s true that the recent increase in trans identification in teenage girls — often girls with autism or other mental issues — is a similar response to social cues, and girls who would otherwise have grown out of it are — at whatever age — getting mastectomies and sterilizing themselves with hormones because they have been led to believe that they are really boys, wouldn’t you agree that this would be a bad consequence of transgender ideology? I’m not asking whether you believe it’s true or not, I’m asking you to acknowledge that if true it would be really, really bad.
I’d still be interested in a straightforward answer.
No, to be clear (and really it seems to me I was fairly clear), I think it’s worse than futile. Worse for people you care about.
But carry on. I’m still going on conjecture to a great extent, as to what you and others are actually up to. I only aim to provoke some thought. As Sun Tzu wrote,
The majority of violence is perpetrated by young men on one another, violence against children, women and indeed trans is very much to a lesser extent. Until ALL violence is equated as unnecessary then the argument is lost…
Donn Cave — I have to say I am kind of startled by your answer. I asked a very narrow question: IF it is true that transgender ideology is leading troubled girls to a body dysmorphic disorder akin to anorexia, THEN wouldn’t that be a bad thing? You might have answered “Yes, I agree it would be bad, but I don’t believe it is happening”. Or you might have said something like “Yes it would be bad, but even if it is happening their sacrifice is worth it, because opposing transgenderism will lead to even worse”. Maybe the latter is what you meant; if so please let me know, because it sounds like you are unwilling to give an inch and acknowledge that hundreds or thousands of unnecessary and irreversible body modifications would even be bad.
When activists are winning they like to portray their success as inevitable, and resistance as futile as pushing back against the tide, but I believe resistance to what you see as bad ideas is always justified. You talk about “conjecturing” as to what I and the others “are actually up to”. I think I’m a pretty straightforward guy actually, but I’m beginning to conjecture that rather than being a “clueless old person hasn’t been keeping up with transsexual troubles”, you actually have strongly held opinions on the matter that you have been keeping to yourself. At the very least, could you explain why opposing transgender ideology is “worse than futile”? What exactly will be “worse for people you care about”, and why will opposition to transgenderism lead to that worse outcome?
That some of us genuinely feel (for genuinely good reasons) that we don’t fit neatly within the binary gendered mainstream world view, and find the dissonance between how we are perceived by others and how we feel about ourselves distressing seems uncontroversial.
What seems less clear cut to me is where the burden of that dissonance belongs
What does the wider world owe those few of us who are subject to this problem? Do the rest of us give up the utility of simple distinctions and language that works for the overwhelming majority of situations? Should the rest of us assume the burden of dissonance by using language that feels like a false match to our perceptions?
What are the wider consequences to society of widespread habituation to saying that which feels expedient but not truthful – whether the motives are good or otherwise?
Does being nominally described by others in the manner we prefer lead to better outcomes, if we also know that this language is often not intended for accuracy in the mind of the speaker, but is rather to make us feel comfortable, or even just to avoid adverse social sanctions to the speaker? Could that awareness become corrosive
Does tolerance really require more than just being happy for others to get on and do their own thing? Is active participation and personal compromise or effort in fostering other people’s agendas and views now required to avoid accusations of intolerance?
Jb, what I wrote above that I hoped you would read: “The culture war approach allows “their side” to line up with tolerance, science, etc. in other areas, and that’s very bad news for you..”
Hence my disclaimer about what you’re actually up to. That’s a tactical issue, and it certainly applies to a lot of public opposition various transgender issues, but … It is not only all to possible to make things worse, it’s the typical purpose of these struggles, as the parties involved usually have other aims that benefit from political division.
As for trying to fight with me over “transgender ideology” … I’m not interested.
Well played Author. After years of taking the piss out religious nutters, including the homicidal ones, you’ve had a tilt at the worst discourse on the internet.
Of course if you want to bring out the really unhinged, have a crack at Taylor Swift…
Donn Cave — It looks like I’m never going to get an answer to my question. Which I suppose in itself is a answer of sorts…
ArchPrime — You’ve hit the nail on the head. How do we deal with such people? There is a wide range of possibilities, from “Burn the witches!” to “Kneel before diversity!”. My own feeling is that gender nonconformity is undesirable and should be discouraged, but that it’s not the worst thing in the world either and society has to allow a space for it. The nature and extent of this space is open to debate, but one thing I believe strongly is that children need to be kept as far away from the debate as possible. I don’t want second graders whispering to each other that maybe they were born in the wrong body, and if they were the doctors can fix it.
The issue is as always, childrens susceptibility to bad ideas is it not?
That’s the bait. Save the children.
One of the hooks you will find in that bait, in the US, is the right wing Christian nationalist faction behind Project 2025 wherein “transgender ideology” is equated with pornography. They need you to go for that bait hard, so they can reel you in with their uncompromising stand on it. Do they think they’re going to save any children? I doubt very much they give a shit about that. Their object is to get us to pick a side on the basis of something we don’t know very much about, so they can define the terrain.
Both sides are crazier than Jesus and Mo.
One of my big reservations about transgender would best be put as:
What is wrong with just being a man who likes doing lots of ‘feminine’ stuff or a woman who likes doing lots of ‘masculine stuff’.
Trans seems to by into lots of BS about X being things for women to do/wear, and Y being things for men to do/wear. But rather that say it is BS they go for insisting that someone who likes X must be a woman and someone who likes Y must be a man regardless of anatomy.
I don’t really care about the ideology behind the LGBTXyz…lobby loonies. I am concerned from a philosophical and logical stance that you are allowed to shut down any argument with the post-modern bullshit of “All truths are valid”, thus, If I say I’m a woman then I am a woman, my truth must be true….all other states do not apply….end of…
An obnoxious, notorious scuzzbucket,
Who hails from the isle of Nantucket,
Wants me to say
Their pronoun is they,
So I told them, ok then, well, fuck it.
Sorry to see the author go down the atheism to hate pipline bye now
I identify as Thor, the God of Thunder. Henceforth, you all may bow/curtsey/kneal while you read and/or type your responses to my posts here.
Pronouns – BAH! Address me as Thor/The Big Banger/Your Magnificence.
Oh and Author, in addition to J & M, I’ve seen Moses and Ganesh, but not my dad, Odin the All-Father. How about some screen time for Ol’ OneEye?
I see that no one has replied to nor addressed paradoctor’s short comment. Sex and gender are two separate concepts. Sex is biological, while gender is psychosocial.
This comment section is filled with reactionary and confused comments by people who haven’t taken the time to engage with what it means to be transgender, nor delve into educational materials about the subject.
For an analogy about just one of these sub-topics: My wife is a tomboy. She is a woman who likes doing sterotypically boyish things. She is a biological (AFAB) female who also has an internal sense of her womanhood. She is not trans. If she had an internal sense of being a man (gender identity), then she would be trans.
I’m a biological male (AMAB) I have an internal sense of being a man. I am not trans. I like to paint my nails. That doesn’t make me a woman. If I had an internal sense of being a woman (gender identity) then I would be trans.
No trans people are insisting that activities or modes of dress (gender expression) constitutes a category of gender. Do those things that you want to do. No matter the sex or gender: dress how you like. But also respect one’s internal understanding of their gender.
Feel free to ask any clarifying questions. I conduct trainings on this topic for a respected institution.
All the transgenders getting pissed off here really makes me laugh. At least I as a Christian don’t consider my beliefs at all scientific and am able to laugh at how strange my beliefs are, why can’t they?
And another thing: transgender ideology is mainly based on the “findings” of pedophile John Money during his experiment raising a young boy with a mutilated penis as female. During these “experiments” he made the young boys sexually molest each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Food for thought.
I happen to see the Virgin Mary every day. Please respect my very clear internal understanding of her existence and do not dare to deny my reality.
Skrynesaver – how is it hate? If calling trans-activists crazy is hateful towards them, doesn’t that mean this comic has been hateful from the start, but to Christians & Muslims?
In addition, this “hate” towards transgenderism is probably less common among atheists than Christians & Muslims, so speaking about an atheism-to-hate pipeline in this context doesn’t make much sense.
misterexist – a lot of people are familiar that your tribe make a distinction between “sex” and “gender” – and simply reject the idea that something mental should define whether one is a man/boy or woman/girl, rather than sex.
Chris Phoenix — After looking at the stats, I’ve realised the murder stats simply do not support the idea that trans people are at a higher risk of being murdered. At least in the US & the UK.
I don’t deny that there have been people murdered for being trans. However there have also been plenty of people murdered for their religious views. Does that mean it’s not OK to make fun of religions as this comic has done from the start?
Chiefly — you assert most trans people want a shot at living peacefully – but does would this not apply to most Christians/Muslims? Would this mean it is wrong to mock Christianity & Islam like this comic does inherently?
However, does insisting others affirm their gender identities count as living peacefully? An analogy to preferred pronouns would be a Muslim insisting you say “Peace Be Upon Him” every time after Muhammad’s name. Would you consider this acceptable? Even though Muhammad comes up a lot less than 3rd-person singular pronouns so it’s much less of a demand?
Anonymous3 — is it a “phobia” to dislike Islam? What about Christianity? If you really liked Islam, would you really consider opposition to transgenderism a bad thing? Muhammad is recorded as having some choice words to say about people who imitated the opposite sex.
usmagrad87 — which scientific research showed that a man or a woman is anyone who feels like one?
paradoctor — if by “gender” you mean whether one is a woman/girl or man/boy, many reject that it should be made different from sex. What is n here?
There are only two sexes in humans, the rare individuals (it’s a lot less than the commonly stated 1.7% figure) who are difficult to classify as male or female are not another sex.
If “gender” is a matter of choice, why should that choice be protected by anti-discrimination law? Should the choice to pretend to be a difference race, age, species etc. be likewise protected? Does liberty not mean people should have the choice to not affirm trans identities?
Vinnie Vidivici — imagine if we applied your logic to categories other than sex.
For instance: One’s age identity is the intersection of:
– how long ago you were born
– your outward appearance
– the age you feel like you are (if any)
– the age you are attracted to (if any)
– and any other factors I’m not thinking of off-the-cuff.\
It would sound pretty stupid wouldn’t it?