Mar 15, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
Much as I admire JK Rowling and her stand out courage in challenging 'transgender' her 'wear whatever you want to wear' needs a rethink. The wolf in little red riding hood wore human grandmother clothing with the express purpose of tricking little red into thinking he was safe and benevolent so as to devour her. He tricks her visual sense, one of the five primary senses, and if her visual sense is overused and her sense of smell underused (especially true these days) then she won't run. Men in women's clothes performing on stage, ok, if you like that sort of thing. On stage it is clear it is an act. Off stage it's an effective predator disguise.
Mar 16, 2023·edited Mar 16, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
Most of the men dressing up to appear to be women are intent on 'passing' as women. That's to say to trick people into believing they are the safer sex rather than the raping murdering paedophile demographic. That split second of being taken in can, in an emergency situation, mean the difference between a child escaping from a predator or being the victim of a predator. We signal with the clothing we wear too. Of course we do.
The 'wear whatever you want to wear' shallow liberalism took an absurd turn when the Canadian school teacher taught class in huge prosthetic breasts and somehow this entitlement to self expression usurped health and safety issues - he was using a circular saw, and the comfort of the children he was teaching.
If as a teen my father had picked me up from school wearing a skirt and heels I swear to you I was so sensitive I would have died of shame, I would have been mortified enough to commit suicide over it. You can die of shame you know, You really can. The men who impose this larping 'I'll wear whatever I want to wear' ad absurdium signal hatred and contempt of their children especially.
I absolutely agree, it's an insanity beyond anything I've ever seen. To allow them to get away with this for as long as they have is so outrageous to me, because it's other men typically in positions of power allowing this madness. But men in general don't understand how creepy they can be to women and children, nor do they seem to understand the effects. They just don't care, imo they're missing an empathy gene.
they don't care. Sex and money power and personal comfort is their motivation. Women endlessly say 'men are selfish' in a world weary way. They need to dig into this platitude because this is what selfish looks like. Men putting their own desires above all else. And the handmaidens downtrodden and desperate gagging for love crumbs because women and girls are so universally hated. Men know exactly how awful men are - any decent man would own it. Statistically you're talking of only one in a million that will. The rest still in the denying/lying #notme club.
Radical Rowling thought with Red Riding Hood characteristics, the latest new ideology from the intellectual juggernauts that make up petite bourgeoisie fascism.
It’s not a big word it’s French for the small rich, or people that are rich but are at risk of losing their wealth in their lifetime if things go poorly for them. You’re just ignorant.
lol you don't really have a response to being confronted with your lack of understanding do you? The worst about about it is that at this point, that phrase is one of the loanwords from France that made it's way into the English language, you're acting like a common English word is overly complicated. I am not being pompous, you are projecting your lack of understanding onto me and claiming that I am morally at fault for not sharing your own ignorance.
Mar 15, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
Some Men have to dominate no matter how trivial or convoluted the point they are trying to make is. They just need to be right, to show who's superior no matter how much they waste your time and energy. Engaging with them stokes their egos. Don't fall for it.
Mar 26, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
This was an absolutely inspiring and amazing write Amy! I thought I had to make my peace with being "that one unconcerned horse" but I'm happy to be reminded by you that "we are many horses" so to speak. Thank you so much!
Mar 15, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
The why is as equally as important as the what. If we don't address why this is being done, a wide scale public and private backed marketing effort to promote something that historically has applied to less than %1 of the population, we will at best put it on pause. The promotion of trans ideology isn't about erasing women but part of a larger effort to destroy healthy male/female sexual roles in society, to muddy the waters in terms of sex so that non-normal sexual behavior can be promoted and normalized or at the very least made socially acceptable; not just tolerated but accepted.
As we have been coerced into embracing more non-common sexual behaviors society has declined in terms of marriages which are the foundation of families which are the foundation of a society. It's not only important to stop this but to address why so it isn't merely put on pause.
What kind of "healthy male/demale sexual roles in society" are at risk of being destroyed here? What is non-normal sexual beahviour? You feel coerced?
This whole comment is just a whole lot of fear mongering, I see none of what you are saying being a bad thing at all. Which has been my point of my comments on here. Your critques as well as Amy's article presuppose that there is a "traditional" way of understanding gender that must be conserved. But there is many other culturals and perfectly moral approaches to sex and gender that you completely disregard.
No, my argument has NOTHING to do with gender. I am saying there is no right or wrong way to exist in your body. Gender roles projected onto human bodies is regressive, sexist,
controlling dogma. You can be feminine in your body or masculine in your body, nothing about your body changes. I am saying all men, however they behave, dress, and externally modify their bodies, are MEN. There is no right or wrong way to be a man. All men are equally physically men.
Ok, this is helpful for me to understand. So then who is your audience for this article? Are there people out there that have a penis and are trying to express through their personality and fashion that they do in fact not have a penis? I've never seen anyone trying to mimic having a vagina, they are almost always trying to mimic fashion or personality of what their prevailing audience would deem as feminine - not the physical reality, but the cultural constructs of what the labels mean.
Men are men, end of story. One of the points I'm making is that there is no such thing as a "tr@nswoman." There are ONLY men or women. Nothing more, nothing less.
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 15, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
I am with you Amy. As a retired clinical social worker who was a supporter of "trans-rights" long before it was fashionable - if anyone had told me even 10 years ago that I would suddenly be labelled a "transphobic bigot" simply because I don't think human beings with a penis (no matter how they 'identify') should have access to women's rape shelters, domestic violence shelters, prisons or locker rooms - I would have considered this possibility to be - "barking mad" - at multiple levels. That this "madness" is now being promulgated across Western societies is rather terrifying I must say.
This analysis is quite accurate - but limited in circumstances to those men who are actually "in good faith" attempting to pass. From my understanding of the phenomenon the vast majority of these mimickers are doing no such thing - as there is absolutely no prospect of them actually being read as women and succeeding in the mimicry. Such actions actually require non-passing since if they did pass they would not cause any alarm - ie would not be noticed at all - so they REQUIRE being noticed to have the effect they seek. They seek to disturb.
Going into social spaces and particularly regulated-access spaces in transwo-man face is a form of ritualised humiliation for the women present- since they suffer clear disturbance from it but present rules preclude them from even complaining about it. Another piece of evidence as to the pathological nature of the phenomenon. Just a Western version of those street scenes from Afghanistan where women must "show overt submission" by wearing the veils etc.
Mar 16, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
He (Nathan) wanted "to see if I could help show you that your entire premise is built on faulty logic." Hmm, he just wanted to tell you how to think. Men can be sooo helpful when they stoop to our level. But let's not stoop to his level.
Men stoop low. Currently stoopiing as low as they can go in plain sight. No amount of wordy sophistry can conceal this. And guess what! They stoop low and we all get to see their cracks - literally and figuratively.
"what it actually is" is where your argument fails as it all rests on an argument from incredulity. There is no "fact" of what actually is outside of the subjective nature of knowledge and language. So while I can follow your logic steps to see how you got to where you did - you are trying to establish an objective standard of sex/gender that just does not exist.
Saying there is "no such thing as" and then saying a word that other people are using to describe something is just disingenous and furthers my first point that you are forcing your subjective definitions in order to make your conclusion.
I don't mind even giving you that you don't use gender to mean what others mean, or that you think it means the same thing at sex - but then we are left with you arguing about what gender means to you - but how are you then even responding to a culture that has a different defition as you have for what they mean when they say gender?
From my point of view, you are arguing into the wind and just writing a fun essay to a very small group of people that aren't systemized in anyway and then calling it 'culture' to make it seem like you are responding to the majority.
I don't think that "gender" means the same thing as sex. I think "gender" means sex based stereotypes that are entirely self-defined so as to be meaningless, they have no basis in reality. My argument has nothing to do with gender, gender is besides the point. My argument has to do with the characteristic of sex, sex recognition, and sex-based safeguarding. It also has to do with primary sense perceptions and the social coercion to deny the reality of one's eyes and ears. 👂
You have not addressed my central point in that animals take a much different approach to mimics than their human counterparts, you have not addressed signal falsification, nor have you addressed emotional manipulation tactics being employed by the culture. You have not addressed sense perceptions and primary instincts. You have neither refuted my central point nor have you created a counterpoint.
Why do I need to address it based on your terms? I addressed what stood out to me which was the premise of your entire approach here assumes that your definitions of words are the objective ones - you're entire premise is built on subjective fundamentals. So like I said, I follow your logic steps to your central point - but it is all wildly irrelevant to what I think is *actually* happening in culture and why anyone would spend their time arguing for it.
My definitions are based on the scientific categorization of organisms into different categories of form & function, from Animal, to Mammal, to Primate, to Human, to Man/Woman. Do you think one can't define what an animal is vs a plant or fungus? Do you think it's subjective the difference between a mammal a reptile or a bird? Do you think there's no way to discern between a rodent and a canine? Words have meanings and we can absolutely categorize organisms. Sex recognition is a primary evolutionary honed instinct that ALL ANIMALS possess.
Sure. You are talking about sex. That's normal. Talk about it all you want.
But gender has now grown to mean "the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity." You are linking sex and gender as if they are the same thing, or proper gender expression is linked to sex. And all I'm saying is that is horseshit. It's only your subjective understanding of these definitions that is making you say that. There's no scientific fact anywhere that says that they need to be linked; only your cultural assumptions determined that they should be linked.
Blue for men, pink for women - that is a construct attached to gender.
Action for men, nuturing for women - another construct attached to gender.
They are just categories that we use to describe behaviour or preference - they are not scientific facts. That is precisely why, in places where these 'behaviours' are cemented into society based on the social construct we see such a backlash against it.
Gender has nothing to do with your physical anatomy is the point. Gender doesn't mean you have a penis or a vagina. But you are treating gender as if it's the same thing as that and that those links should be obvious - and they are not in anyway.
Mar 15, 2023·edited Apr 24, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
No, you are trying to muddy the waters by denying the etymology of Gender and act like as if the re-definition of gender as of recent is the real definition. The etymology is very clear, gender is used to refer to a kind being male or female. It is intrinsically tied to sex despite recent efforts to change that. You can argue that in slang the definition of Gender is something other than it's true definition just as the word cool is not always meant refer to something that is of a low or lower temperature.
The origin or etymology of gender is very clear and attempts to argue otherwise are attempts to support delusional beliefs like non-binary or one of many faux so called gender types. There was no debate about what gender was until recently, when it was necessary to start altering the publics perception about male and female so as to normalize non-normal behavior with regards to sex.
That's not true at all. Your understanding of the definition is certainly not the norm within academia nor popular culture. You are holding onto a definition in order to force your conclusion. But let's say I give you that, let's say that gender is just another word for sex. That's fine but then you're not actually talking to anybody who is using the other definition of gender. You're just talking to people that believe your definition already and want to double down on it.
So what word would you use to describe "the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity?"
all of those things are rooted in biology. But if you want to talk about them specifically you can say "the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity." Just as you can say any gender identity other than male or female is a fantasy not rooted in biology or reality.
I stopped being as polite about these things as you are because these people don't deserve it. This isn't a case of classical Liberal versus Classical Conservative debating how government we should have and so it's just a differing opinion. These people are causing serious harm to society and because they're being propped up by powerful and wealthy interests and thus aren't going to just fade away like most bad ideas do we can no longer treat them with kids gloves or being polite. I'm not going to resort to using foul language, cursing at them as if often the case from the other side when faced with something they can't defend but I'm not going to be polite about it either.
What our eyes see is a man in a dress. But for some reason you think it's necessary to call that man in the dress someone who is trying to lie to you. But I see it as them just being a man in a dress and attempting to describe it to you.
" not the norm within academia nor popular culture"
And you've cited the reason why your take on gender is wrong. We certainly do not take pop-culture as the basis for what the definition of something is unless as I said before it's being used in slang. As for academia, it was also academia that just over 100 years ago helped push Eugenics and blacklisted anyone who tried to counter that claim. It took time but eventually that madness failed and we no longer see Eugenics as academia and the scientific community both tried to promote it as.
Academia and the Scientific community aren't always on the right side of history. As humans they are as susceptible to mistakes and social pressure as the rest of us.
The entire critque is critquing pop culture isn't it? I don't think you need to use pop culture definitions - but if you are going to critque pop culture, then you should probably be using the terms the way that it uses them. I am far from promoting acadamia or the science community - I am simply stating that there is no agreement on the terms you are using this is written as if there was agreement.
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
I agree with Amy sex is immutable, not that the objective truth of science requires my agreement. I differ slightly, though not in substance. I prefer using the traditional definition of gender, which is synonymous with sex. In that sense, both gender and sex are objective scientific truths.
And that's fine if you both use the traditional definitions, but then the critique fails as it is based on a different set of assumptions that who she is critiquing does not make.
My critique is not dependent on that factor. You still have not addressed signal falsification. Regardless of any difference of definition we may have around sex & gender, you have not addressed mimicry, signal falsification, and direct sensory perceptions.
Mar 14, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
I'm sure there is an aspect to this piece that is over my head. What I get is that biological sex differences are real. It's important to perceive the difference between them. Signal falsification, or interference with the signal perceptions of signal perceivers, can be harmful or detrimental to signal perceivers. And it's important for signal perceivers to be able to detect and evade efforts to falsify signals and interfere with their signal perception. I hope I didn't butcher it too much.
No one anywhere is arguing that a human with a penis doesn't *actually* have a penis. And a human with a vagina doesn't *actually* have a vagina. All of the argument rests in the names/definitions that we prescribe to different physical realities. That's why it's all madness. I question anyone that cares too much about the name/definitions and tries to force their versions as correct. Amy is trying to defned her definitions over and above someone else's and it's all just made up.
You are trying to force your definitions of words and trying to force your cultural beliefs into the argument. It's a faulty premise so your central point only is true if you believe your premise.
Mar 16, 2023·edited Mar 16, 2023Liked by Amy Sousa, MA Depth Psychology
differentiating between distinguishing a penis from a vagina and distinguishing between male and female is like differentiating between distinguishing a combination of two hydrogen atoms & one oxygen atom with a combination of two oxygen atoms and distinguishing between water and oxygen. It's ridiculous. Of course every word we speak has been made up by us. but it represents something real and are therefore real in their meaning.
Much as I admire JK Rowling and her stand out courage in challenging 'transgender' her 'wear whatever you want to wear' needs a rethink. The wolf in little red riding hood wore human grandmother clothing with the express purpose of tricking little red into thinking he was safe and benevolent so as to devour her. He tricks her visual sense, one of the five primary senses, and if her visual sense is overused and her sense of smell underused (especially true these days) then she won't run. Men in women's clothes performing on stage, ok, if you like that sort of thing. On stage it is clear it is an act. Off stage it's an effective predator disguise.
I absolutely agree. I'm currently working with one of these deviants. They perform as a "woman" to gain easier access to us.
Most of the men dressing up to appear to be women are intent on 'passing' as women. That's to say to trick people into believing they are the safer sex rather than the raping murdering paedophile demographic. That split second of being taken in can, in an emergency situation, mean the difference between a child escaping from a predator or being the victim of a predator. We signal with the clothing we wear too. Of course we do.
The 'wear whatever you want to wear' shallow liberalism took an absurd turn when the Canadian school teacher taught class in huge prosthetic breasts and somehow this entitlement to self expression usurped health and safety issues - he was using a circular saw, and the comfort of the children he was teaching.
If as a teen my father had picked me up from school wearing a skirt and heels I swear to you I was so sensitive I would have died of shame, I would have been mortified enough to commit suicide over it. You can die of shame you know, You really can. The men who impose this larping 'I'll wear whatever I want to wear' ad absurdium signal hatred and contempt of their children especially.
They Shall Not Pass
I absolutely agree, it's an insanity beyond anything I've ever seen. To allow them to get away with this for as long as they have is so outrageous to me, because it's other men typically in positions of power allowing this madness. But men in general don't understand how creepy they can be to women and children, nor do they seem to understand the effects. They just don't care, imo they're missing an empathy gene.
they don't care. Sex and money power and personal comfort is their motivation. Women endlessly say 'men are selfish' in a world weary way. They need to dig into this platitude because this is what selfish looks like. Men putting their own desires above all else. And the handmaidens downtrodden and desperate gagging for love crumbs because women and girls are so universally hated. Men know exactly how awful men are - any decent man would own it. Statistically you're talking of only one in a million that will. The rest still in the denying/lying #notme club.
Exactly. I'm so done with the handmaidens.
Radical Rowling thought with Red Riding Hood characteristics, the latest new ideology from the intellectual juggernauts that make up petite bourgeoisie fascism.
Be quiet. All these big pompous words to say so little when you could read the great enduring classics such as Little Red Riding Hood.
It’s not a big word it’s French for the small rich, or people that are rich but are at risk of losing their wealth in their lifetime if things go poorly for them. You’re just ignorant.
Yes, Deah. If you say so Deah!
lol you don't really have a response to being confronted with your lack of understanding do you? The worst about about it is that at this point, that phrase is one of the loanwords from France that made it's way into the English language, you're acting like a common English word is overly complicated. I am not being pompous, you are projecting your lack of understanding onto me and claiming that I am morally at fault for not sharing your own ignorance.
Stop being an MCW (middle class wanker) spouting leftist gobbledigook, It's embarrassing and tedious, and besdes it's bad manners to bore people.
Some Men have to dominate no matter how trivial or convoluted the point they are trying to make is. They just need to be right, to show who's superior no matter how much they waste your time and energy. Engaging with them stokes their egos. Don't fall for it.
They always assume they know best about everything and that we must be idiots. It gets really tiresome. Best to avoid them all.
save the energy they aim to suck from you for yourself other women and children - a convoluted comment flags up lack of integrity from the get go.
Great article! Thanks for showing the gravity of the situation for what it is.
You should add the link to Part One so that people can readily find it and read it!
Good call. Thanks.
This was an absolutely inspiring and amazing write Amy! I thought I had to make my peace with being "that one unconcerned horse" but I'm happy to be reminded by you that "we are many horses" so to speak. Thank you so much!
The why is as equally as important as the what. If we don't address why this is being done, a wide scale public and private backed marketing effort to promote something that historically has applied to less than %1 of the population, we will at best put it on pause. The promotion of trans ideology isn't about erasing women but part of a larger effort to destroy healthy male/female sexual roles in society, to muddy the waters in terms of sex so that non-normal sexual behavior can be promoted and normalized or at the very least made socially acceptable; not just tolerated but accepted.
As we have been coerced into embracing more non-common sexual behaviors society has declined in terms of marriages which are the foundation of families which are the foundation of a society. It's not only important to stop this but to address why so it isn't merely put on pause.
What kind of "healthy male/demale sexual roles in society" are at risk of being destroyed here? What is non-normal sexual beahviour? You feel coerced?
This whole comment is just a whole lot of fear mongering, I see none of what you are saying being a bad thing at all. Which has been my point of my comments on here. Your critques as well as Amy's article presuppose that there is a "traditional" way of understanding gender that must be conserved. But there is many other culturals and perfectly moral approaches to sex and gender that you completely disregard.
No, my argument has NOTHING to do with gender. I am saying there is no right or wrong way to exist in your body. Gender roles projected onto human bodies is regressive, sexist,
controlling dogma. You can be feminine in your body or masculine in your body, nothing about your body changes. I am saying all men, however they behave, dress, and externally modify their bodies, are MEN. There is no right or wrong way to be a man. All men are equally physically men.
Ok, this is helpful for me to understand. So then who is your audience for this article? Are there people out there that have a penis and are trying to express through their personality and fashion that they do in fact not have a penis? I've never seen anyone trying to mimic having a vagina, they are almost always trying to mimic fashion or personality of what their prevailing audience would deem as feminine - not the physical reality, but the cultural constructs of what the labels mean.
very interesting discussion on the signals are not just about the signal-sender but the signal-receivers too.
This is great how you break it all down so people can better understand this madness, thank you so much.
A great post - thank you. My new mantra has become the unassailable declaration of biological reality - "Trans-women ARE Trans-women!" End of story.
Men are men, end of story. One of the points I'm making is that there is no such thing as a "tr@nswoman." There are ONLY men or women. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am with you Amy. As a retired clinical social worker who was a supporter of "trans-rights" long before it was fashionable - if anyone had told me even 10 years ago that I would suddenly be labelled a "transphobic bigot" simply because I don't think human beings with a penis (no matter how they 'identify') should have access to women's rape shelters, domestic violence shelters, prisons or locker rooms - I would have considered this possibility to be - "barking mad" - at multiple levels. That this "madness" is now being promulgated across Western societies is rather terrifying I must say.
This analysis is quite accurate - but limited in circumstances to those men who are actually "in good faith" attempting to pass. From my understanding of the phenomenon the vast majority of these mimickers are doing no such thing - as there is absolutely no prospect of them actually being read as women and succeeding in the mimicry. Such actions actually require non-passing since if they did pass they would not cause any alarm - ie would not be noticed at all - so they REQUIRE being noticed to have the effect they seek. They seek to disturb.
Going into social spaces and particularly regulated-access spaces in transwo-man face is a form of ritualised humiliation for the women present- since they suffer clear disturbance from it but present rules preclude them from even complaining about it. Another piece of evidence as to the pathological nature of the phenomenon. Just a Western version of those street scenes from Afghanistan where women must "show overt submission" by wearing the veils etc.
I think that Mimic should be remade featuring the trans identified.
I'm not sure what you mean?
He (Nathan) wanted "to see if I could help show you that your entire premise is built on faulty logic." Hmm, he just wanted to tell you how to think. Men can be sooo helpful when they stoop to our level. But let's not stoop to his level.
Men stoop low. Currently stoopiing as low as they can go in plain sight. No amount of wordy sophistry can conceal this. And guess what! They stoop low and we all get to see their cracks - literally and figuratively.
I don't engage with blatant sophistry. The arrogant tone that goes with it offends my ears.
Ohhh offense. That's how you'll dismiss my points. Got it.
No, I don't want to to tell her how to think. I was trying to show her what I saw is all. She can and will think what she wants.
"what it actually is" is where your argument fails as it all rests on an argument from incredulity. There is no "fact" of what actually is outside of the subjective nature of knowledge and language. So while I can follow your logic steps to see how you got to where you did - you are trying to establish an objective standard of sex/gender that just does not exist.
There is no such thing as "gender" and sex is an immutable characteristic of all mammals, humans included.
Saying there is "no such thing as" and then saying a word that other people are using to describe something is just disingenous and furthers my first point that you are forcing your subjective definitions in order to make your conclusion.
I don't mind even giving you that you don't use gender to mean what others mean, or that you think it means the same thing at sex - but then we are left with you arguing about what gender means to you - but how are you then even responding to a culture that has a different defition as you have for what they mean when they say gender?
From my point of view, you are arguing into the wind and just writing a fun essay to a very small group of people that aren't systemized in anyway and then calling it 'culture' to make it seem like you are responding to the majority.
I don't think that "gender" means the same thing as sex. I think "gender" means sex based stereotypes that are entirely self-defined so as to be meaningless, they have no basis in reality. My argument has nothing to do with gender, gender is besides the point. My argument has to do with the characteristic of sex, sex recognition, and sex-based safeguarding. It also has to do with primary sense perceptions and the social coercion to deny the reality of one's eyes and ears. 👂
You have not addressed my central point in that animals take a much different approach to mimics than their human counterparts, you have not addressed signal falsification, nor have you addressed emotional manipulation tactics being employed by the culture. You have not addressed sense perceptions and primary instincts. You have neither refuted my central point nor have you created a counterpoint.
Why do I need to address it based on your terms? I addressed what stood out to me which was the premise of your entire approach here assumes that your definitions of words are the objective ones - you're entire premise is built on subjective fundamentals. So like I said, I follow your logic steps to your central point - but it is all wildly irrelevant to what I think is *actually* happening in culture and why anyone would spend their time arguing for it.
My definitions are based on the scientific categorization of organisms into different categories of form & function, from Animal, to Mammal, to Primate, to Human, to Man/Woman. Do you think one can't define what an animal is vs a plant or fungus? Do you think it's subjective the difference between a mammal a reptile or a bird? Do you think there's no way to discern between a rodent and a canine? Words have meanings and we can absolutely categorize organisms. Sex recognition is a primary evolutionary honed instinct that ALL ANIMALS possess.
Sure. You are talking about sex. That's normal. Talk about it all you want.
But gender has now grown to mean "the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity." You are linking sex and gender as if they are the same thing, or proper gender expression is linked to sex. And all I'm saying is that is horseshit. It's only your subjective understanding of these definitions that is making you say that. There's no scientific fact anywhere that says that they need to be linked; only your cultural assumptions determined that they should be linked.
What is "woman behavior?" How is it distinctly different from "man behavior?" And how are these distinguished from the more general "human behavior?"
That is how gender is categorized and defined.
Blue for men, pink for women - that is a construct attached to gender.
Action for men, nuturing for women - another construct attached to gender.
They are just categories that we use to describe behaviour or preference - they are not scientific facts. That is precisely why, in places where these 'behaviours' are cemented into society based on the social construct we see such a backlash against it.
Gender has nothing to do with your physical anatomy is the point. Gender doesn't mean you have a penis or a vagina. But you are treating gender as if it's the same thing as that and that those links should be obvious - and they are not in anyway.
Because most of us choose to live in reality where facts matter.
Lol, please enlighten me with your facts on cultural attitudes towards expression. Can't wait to see what science has to say about that.
No, you are trying to muddy the waters by denying the etymology of Gender and act like as if the re-definition of gender as of recent is the real definition. The etymology is very clear, gender is used to refer to a kind being male or female. It is intrinsically tied to sex despite recent efforts to change that. You can argue that in slang the definition of Gender is something other than it's true definition just as the word cool is not always meant refer to something that is of a low or lower temperature.
The origin or etymology of gender is very clear and attempts to argue otherwise are attempts to support delusional beliefs like non-binary or one of many faux so called gender types. There was no debate about what gender was until recently, when it was necessary to start altering the publics perception about male and female so as to normalize non-normal behavior with regards to sex.
That's not true at all. Your understanding of the definition is certainly not the norm within academia nor popular culture. You are holding onto a definition in order to force your conclusion. But let's say I give you that, let's say that gender is just another word for sex. That's fine but then you're not actually talking to anybody who is using the other definition of gender. You're just talking to people that believe your definition already and want to double down on it.
So what word would you use to describe "the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity?"
all of those things are rooted in biology. But if you want to talk about them specifically you can say "the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity." Just as you can say any gender identity other than male or female is a fantasy not rooted in biology or reality.
I stopped being as polite about these things as you are because these people don't deserve it. This isn't a case of classical Liberal versus Classical Conservative debating how government we should have and so it's just a differing opinion. These people are causing serious harm to society and because they're being propped up by powerful and wealthy interests and thus aren't going to just fade away like most bad ideas do we can no longer treat them with kids gloves or being polite. I'm not going to resort to using foul language, cursing at them as if often the case from the other side when faced with something they can't defend but I'm not going to be polite about it either.
correct
This article doesn't do that though - it just dismisses the term or idea of it as if it's irrelevant because that's not the terms they use.
It is irrelevant to staying grounded in our sense perceptions of reality and naming what our eyes see.
What our eyes see is a man in a dress. But for some reason you think it's necessary to call that man in the dress someone who is trying to lie to you. But I see it as them just being a man in a dress and attempting to describe it to you.
" not the norm within academia nor popular culture"
And you've cited the reason why your take on gender is wrong. We certainly do not take pop-culture as the basis for what the definition of something is unless as I said before it's being used in slang. As for academia, it was also academia that just over 100 years ago helped push Eugenics and blacklisted anyone who tried to counter that claim. It took time but eventually that madness failed and we no longer see Eugenics as academia and the scientific community both tried to promote it as.
Academia and the Scientific community aren't always on the right side of history. As humans they are as susceptible to mistakes and social pressure as the rest of us.
The entire critque is critquing pop culture isn't it? I don't think you need to use pop culture definitions - but if you are going to critque pop culture, then you should probably be using the terms the way that it uses them. I am far from promoting acadamia or the science community - I am simply stating that there is no agreement on the terms you are using this is written as if there was agreement.
I agree with Amy sex is immutable, not that the objective truth of science requires my agreement. I differ slightly, though not in substance. I prefer using the traditional definition of gender, which is synonymous with sex. In that sense, both gender and sex are objective scientific truths.
And that's fine if you both use the traditional definitions, but then the critique fails as it is based on a different set of assumptions that who she is critiquing does not make.
My critique is not dependent on that factor. You still have not addressed signal falsification. Regardless of any difference of definition we may have around sex & gender, you have not addressed mimicry, signal falsification, and direct sensory perceptions.
I'm sure there is an aspect to this piece that is over my head. What I get is that biological sex differences are real. It's important to perceive the difference between them. Signal falsification, or interference with the signal perceptions of signal perceivers, can be harmful or detrimental to signal perceivers. And it's important for signal perceivers to be able to detect and evade efforts to falsify signals and interfere with their signal perception. I hope I didn't butcher it too much.
Yeah, see that's the thing.
No one anywhere is arguing that a human with a penis doesn't *actually* have a penis. And a human with a vagina doesn't *actually* have a vagina. All of the argument rests in the names/definitions that we prescribe to different physical realities. That's why it's all madness. I question anyone that cares too much about the name/definitions and tries to force their versions as correct. Amy is trying to defned her definitions over and above someone else's and it's all just made up.
Where did I make that argument? You have still not addressed my central point, nor have you made a counter point.
You are trying to force your definitions of words and trying to force your cultural beliefs into the argument. It's a faulty premise so your central point only is true if you believe your premise.
differentiating between distinguishing a penis from a vagina and distinguishing between male and female is like differentiating between distinguishing a combination of two hydrogen atoms & one oxygen atom with a combination of two oxygen atoms and distinguishing between water and oxygen. It's ridiculous. Of course every word we speak has been made up by us. but it represents something real and are therefore real in their meaning.
Yes, real in their meaning - so then why does Amy disregard the meaning that others use?