“The body is not a thing, it is a situation: it is our grasp on the world and our sketch of our project”.
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex
Following from the peripheries as I have on recent efforts to eliminate sex-specific protections for female pupils in the Edmonton school system — I’ve seen the liberal cadres line up to dole out the platitudes.
The usual suspects, as they say: prominent journalists pushing monocular views on transgenderism; well-paid professors (usually male), flush with public funds and organizing hostile media scrums; and, princesses of the lot: the transwoman “mum of the year” and the late transitioning male of aggressive activism and award hoarding, both looking to cash-in their cultural capital whilst the good ship TS Caitlyn still has some steam left.
Gender functions as a social currency, and its trade-value right now is high.
Yet … what I have not heard from any of these individuals — who collectively have decades worth of education and hundreds of thousands of dollars in income — is a semblance of sensitivity as to why teenage girls would not wish to undress before PE Lesson in front of teenage boys.
Indeed, not a single thought in any of the dozens of op-eds or radio interviews as to how the conflation of male and female spaces has disastrous consequences for female bodies, as the University of Toronto recently discovered in their progressive “bathroom policy“.
As always, girls matter last.
It’s far easier to promote a cheap fabula of vulnerable mermaid (the male transgirl) against the hobgoblins of denial, whether it be witch feminists or ogre Catholics . . . whoever is closest when there’s a target required. Identity über alles
In all of this remixed kerfuffle of “trans girls are girls” and “trans girls were female and are always female” . . . I had to ask them. . . what or who do you think a girl is? or female?
It’s seems a fairly simple question. Surely a professional expert in sexuality studies, Dr Kristopher Wells, could answer. He’s a professor, policy engineer, creative opinion designer, and all around online dragoon on behalf of transwomen — well, the right kind of transwomen.
Sir — I enquired — from your PhD expertise . . . how would you define female? I asked, since he’s so intent on eliminating female-specific space from educational settings. He balked. So I pressed again … how does a male child “identify” as female? What does that entail?
He promptly blocked me henceforth. “Vulnerable youth” doesn’t include females, of course.
I’m not a university pundit; but I’m fairly certain the meaning of “female” isn’t an empty, theoretical debate.
So, in my ongoing quest, I sought out prominent journalist Paula Simons, who believes adamantly that “gender is between your ears”. What, or who, is a female? She refused, and requested I provide a definition first. Who do I think a girl is?
Sure. “Young female human,” I answered, perhaps pithily, but that’s really what girl means. Female? Sex class of humans capable of childbirth. (By the way, recognizing qualitative conditions does not reduce a subject to said conditions — that is what Beauvoir was arguing against).
“Your turn,” I requested.
Simons refused. Would. Not. Do It. Not a word.
So I turned to Catholic educational trustee, Patricia Grell, who I thought might at least offer a quip or two from the Baltimore Catechism. And the response? Like a deflated football kicked into touch. Grell is at the vanguard of regulating “sex” not as a physical state, but a mental “intuition” — and so I asked her how such a policy might impact actual girls (remember them? the subservient class to gender non-conforming males?) :
Does it not worry anyone — someone out there — that all of these cultural elites . . . the professors, journalists, educators, and administrators who create public policy . . . that all of them refused to explain what they mean by the word “female”? Grell and company would have girls displaced from sport teams, scholarships, field trips, and so forth, to yield to males who ‘identify’ as female.
In this context, “identifying” as female is simply a rhetorical act, an announcement: a male declaring, de facto, “I feel female.”
I’d make it a quip here … but I can’t. This is very serious. There is a female-erasing agenda being driven, like the golden spike, into the hard-won protections women fought for decades to attain . . . in realising the basic feminist fact that sexism is based on sex.
This is an agenda that dare not speak its own name.
Dr Dana Jennett Bevan is a transsexual who champions the rights of male transvestites accessing female spaces while ‘en femme’. A female is all in the clothes, and the right attitude, apparently.
She was, however, the only person willing to define at least one term … no, not female … no, not girl … those words don’t matter . . . but she was all chips in for asserting transgender:
Dr Bevan claims, via combox,
“Being transgender means that one behaves in a gender behavior category which is incongrent with the gender behavior category assigned at birth based on sex”.
Now the biological denialism becomes exposed.
Quite frankly, I’m aghast that people with advanced degrees keep pushing these house of cards of tautologies — indeed, not only pushing them, but trying to legislate them as universal fact. “Biological sex” is a myth, but phantom FemmeSelf within is transcendental truth.
These are the same parents claiming their sons expressed a female “gender identity” at eighteen months of age . . . by which I think they mean he grabbed a pink blankie. There is, of course, a new form of beauty pageant emerging — the transed male — with eager parents building their own El Dorado of GoFundMe dubloons through exposure. (More on this unsettling development in another post.)
It’s nonsense: “gender behaviour category”. Do people take this seriously?
Is every boy who picks up a doll and likes to wear skirts transgender?
“Gender behaviour” is entirely a construct of expectations, and “non trans” people flout the expectations of gender every single day. Ask a female astronaut who doesn’t want to have children about “gender behaviour” and not being “congruent” with “assigned” schematics of femininity.
They claim I am unable to distinguish sex and gender: rather, I am critiquing their very loose application of the terms. Their lack of political accountability as to how gender is socially constructed (hello patriarchy) is pure idealism.
Sex is material facticity, corporeal embodiment. We are a sexually dimorphic species, organized according to male/female reproductive capacities. “Gender identity” is entirely a late 20th century invention, based upon codification of sex stereotypes prescribed and mapped upon those bodies. Feminine and masculine are political, social formations. Feminism has pointed this out for decades. Gender is not a binary: it’s a hierarchy. They describe a ‘masculine category’, yet the elites seem to believe such appears ex nihilo out of the sky, rather than a subject-formation process that is *externally produced*. There is no such thing as an a priori gender identity: “a woman . . . is made.” We are socialized by gender.
What exactly do they think gender is?
From all I can tell it means “sex stereotypes enforced and ascribed according to expectations of bodies.”
Most lesbians I know report feeling incredible dis-ease with their corporeal embodiment, especially as teenagers, under the regime of ‘femininity’. Gender hurts. Transwomen don’t have a monopoly on feeling alienated by the gendering of bodies. Thus we simply cannot promote the notion of ‘gender identity’ as anything more than personality traits that respond with anxiety, excitement, and discomfort when encountering the rules of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and who are allowed to possess these traits. Hence why liberals are much happier to see a ‘trans girl’ than a gender non conforming boy. Truth is: most kids grow out of gender dysphoria. This is the clinical consensus: *most kids who claim to be ‘transgender’ grow out of it.* In fact, most of them become perfectly happy homosexual adults. Thus, they are advocating conversion therapy by rushing gender creative kids into normative models of “you must really be a girl because you like feminine things”.
As for the ‘pathologization’ of transsexuality — this is how we approach and treat psychical situations of discomfort. We pathologize all kinds of situations in order to develop paradigms of treatment and care. We are stigmatizing the seeking of mental health care by saying, more or less, “hey trans people aren’t like them SICKOS over there who need therapy.” Spend some time with actual trans people: concurrent “mental unwellness” conditions are *rampant*, and it’s not enough to place the blame that there still exists, somehow, a basic understanding of physical anthropology: “Transphobia arises from knowing how babies are made, and that penises are male!”
We do know a penis is the male sex organ, yes? A penis that identifies as female or feminine does not convert the embodied state of the subject.
Quite frankly, if one denies the material facticity of sex, and believe that ‘female’ is simply a mental phenomenon … you’re a penis rights activist through the erasure of female-specific realities.
‘Female’ isn’t a feeling; it’s embodiment.
‘Gender’ isn’t an identity; it’s ideology.