Loved this article! Cancel culture, silencing voices that speak out for the health and best interests of children in order to protect an ideology . . . under the guise of protecting children . . and so much more to think about, for all of us.
This was a depressing read as it is still unfathomable to me as to how we arrived at this place in such
a relatively short period of time and the vitriol for questioning any of it. Rather than Sisyphus I'd look to Prometheus who I decided quite early in life was punished not because fire brought heat but rather that it brought light. The penalty for seeing in darkness is to have harpies eat your liver on a daily basis. (are there now eagles who self-identify as harpies?) Taking the advice from my cereal box I'm going to let contents settle and reread at a later time.......and thank you for this.
Prometheus is my favorite Greek myth. I suppose we could apply Camus to him as well, though, if he can summon the inner strength to be happy while the eagle picks at him.
But I already used up the Prometheus myth to frame an earlier essay on the value of science ;)
OK, at the risk of gushing fanboy, lovely artwork. Sisyphus , and your totalitarian artist are beautifully rendered. Your scholarship similarly masterful. As a result of this, however, I feel it necessary that we begin referring to onanism as Leeuwenhoeking. I can’t stop imagining how he obtained his sample.
Hahaha thank you -- apparently other early microscope enthusiasts pestered him for a while to get him to look at his own semen under the microscope, and finally he reluctantly agreed, and then when he shared his findings he was rather bashful about it, even suggesting that they not be shared widely.
Anne Fausto-Sterling is a classic sophist who starts with desired result first and works backwards to tailor all evidence in her direction, who uses rhetorical shell games like confusing category with characteristic (if men are the taller sex is a tall woman still a woman?) and other forms of spurious logic (if men are the sex with beards is a bearded lady a man?), and who when all else fails falls back on heavy doses of moral and emotional blackmail—do as I say or the kid gets it!
But mostly, despite being baptized in Parisian nonsense, she is an avatar of our deeply American Disneyfied narcissism (if you wish hard enough, all your dreams will come true!), with (ironically) a heavy dash of the feminine—ie. if I feel it this strongly, it must be real! (Apologies to our host.)
But you do no one any favors, not even the Platonic sufferer who exists outside the Platonic dimorphic mold (lol), telling them reality is the enemy, that their feelings construct the world, that it's possible to be born in the wrong body (which feels too absurd to even type), and that anyone who disagrees is an evil enemy. Or, as her homegirl Judith Butler put it: "Nothing is more important for transgender people than....to have their freedom and desire affirmed by the rest of the world." Imagine telling "the rest of the world" that they must affirm your "desire"!? Seneca weeps!
If the American academy had set out purposely to create an angry brittle Red Guard of narcissists who treat every person who refuses to obey them like a class enemy could they have done any better?
This is why the poor lost souls of Queer Theory refuse to debate their opponents and can't even define the central plank of their dogma (has anyone ever given a simple, solid definition of "gender"?), but only attack their opponents in the ugliest ways possible—they are mimicking the ways of thought of their nursemaids, the American theorist class, sophists all, who are uniformly dogmatic and dishonest and just as vicious as their Marxist ancestors, except in this crusade the class struggle has been relocated into our underwear.
But they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and we shall know them by their fruits. To paraphrase a prior Left theorist, Uncle Joe Stalin: “The mutilation of one child is a tragedy. The mutilation of a many thousands is a statistic.”
I regret commenting so soon, the whole piece is so rich i really need to read it again more slowly—ok if i comment again tomorrow? (lol)
I had to add apologies for that feminine crack, I wouldn't want you/anyone to think I'm a misogynist—it's really ugly out here on the internet (as I'm sure you've noticed).
I reached for Seneca thinking of Stoics and their wisdom—shit, I should have gone w Marcus Aurelius! (This is why you should think first, comment later.)
Much appreciation for the great piece, is measured, wise and sane.
Hahaha comment as much as you want! Who wouldn't want someone to engage their writing so much?! I let out a big guffah at your Seneca line, I liked it.
Your point about gamete sex being binary is obviously true. However, given that gamete sex determines sex, you will indeed end up with some biological men who have physical traits strongly associated with the female sex, and even some who do not appear to be male at all, and vice versa. Given that, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that you would have biological men and women who are much better off when they alter their sex characteristics as much as possible to resemble the opposite sex, and occupy the social roles typically occupied by the opposite sex.
Also, my one issue: What if someone is born without the ability to produce either set of gametes? This clearly doesn't apply to the vast majority of people, but I'm sure someone, at some point, has been born without either testicles or ovaries. How should their case be handled?
I have no issue with adults transitioning, as long as they are accurately informed about the medical consequences so that they can make a truly informed decision.
To your one issue: Sex is defined by whether a body is *organized around* the ability to produce the larger or smaller gamete, not whether the body is actively producing it. For a great summary on why intersex conditions, for example, do not undermine the sex binary, check out this link from Zachary Elliott, founder of the Paradox Institute (this is also hyperlinked in the essay where I quote from this piece):
I guess my question is, although obviously this is an extremely rare case, what if someone has a body with mixed characteristics and is born without the ability to produce either gamete or the organs that would produce them? What I mean to say is, how would one determine which type of gamete production the body is organized around in this circumstance? Would it be the presence of the SRY gene, or something else?
Loved this article! Cancel culture, silencing voices that speak out for the health and best interests of children in order to protect an ideology . . . under the guise of protecting children . . and so much more to think about, for all of us.
This one will be up there with lobotomies in the history of medicine.
This was a depressing read as it is still unfathomable to me as to how we arrived at this place in such
a relatively short period of time and the vitriol for questioning any of it. Rather than Sisyphus I'd look to Prometheus who I decided quite early in life was punished not because fire brought heat but rather that it brought light. The penalty for seeing in darkness is to have harpies eat your liver on a daily basis. (are there now eagles who self-identify as harpies?) Taking the advice from my cereal box I'm going to let contents settle and reread at a later time.......and thank you for this.
Prometheus is my favorite Greek myth. I suppose we could apply Camus to him as well, though, if he can summon the inner strength to be happy while the eagle picks at him.
But I already used up the Prometheus myth to frame an earlier essay on the value of science ;)
https://www.fashionablylatetakes.com/p/curiosity-is-sacred?r=2vr1o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Fascinating.
OK, at the risk of gushing fanboy, lovely artwork. Sisyphus , and your totalitarian artist are beautifully rendered. Your scholarship similarly masterful. As a result of this, however, I feel it necessary that we begin referring to onanism as Leeuwenhoeking. I can’t stop imagining how he obtained his sample.
Hahaha thank you -- apparently other early microscope enthusiasts pestered him for a while to get him to look at his own semen under the microscope, and finally he reluctantly agreed, and then when he shared his findings he was rather bashful about it, even suggesting that they not be shared widely.
Anne Fausto-Sterling is a classic sophist who starts with desired result first and works backwards to tailor all evidence in her direction, who uses rhetorical shell games like confusing category with characteristic (if men are the taller sex is a tall woman still a woman?) and other forms of spurious logic (if men are the sex with beards is a bearded lady a man?), and who when all else fails falls back on heavy doses of moral and emotional blackmail—do as I say or the kid gets it!
But mostly, despite being baptized in Parisian nonsense, she is an avatar of our deeply American Disneyfied narcissism (if you wish hard enough, all your dreams will come true!), with (ironically) a heavy dash of the feminine—ie. if I feel it this strongly, it must be real! (Apologies to our host.)
But you do no one any favors, not even the Platonic sufferer who exists outside the Platonic dimorphic mold (lol), telling them reality is the enemy, that their feelings construct the world, that it's possible to be born in the wrong body (which feels too absurd to even type), and that anyone who disagrees is an evil enemy. Or, as her homegirl Judith Butler put it: "Nothing is more important for transgender people than....to have their freedom and desire affirmed by the rest of the world." Imagine telling "the rest of the world" that they must affirm your "desire"!? Seneca weeps!
If the American academy had set out purposely to create an angry brittle Red Guard of narcissists who treat every person who refuses to obey them like a class enemy could they have done any better?
This is why the poor lost souls of Queer Theory refuse to debate their opponents and can't even define the central plank of their dogma (has anyone ever given a simple, solid definition of "gender"?), but only attack their opponents in the ugliest ways possible—they are mimicking the ways of thought of their nursemaids, the American theorist class, sophists all, who are uniformly dogmatic and dishonest and just as vicious as their Marxist ancestors, except in this crusade the class struggle has been relocated into our underwear.
But they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and we shall know them by their fruits. To paraphrase a prior Left theorist, Uncle Joe Stalin: “The mutilation of one child is a tragedy. The mutilation of a many thousands is a statistic.”
GREAT PIECE! THANKS!
Hahaha, I'll not clutch my pearls at the "heavy dash of feminine." I'm glad you liked the visual essay so much!
But does Seneca weep? “What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears.”
I regret commenting so soon, the whole piece is so rich i really need to read it again more slowly—ok if i comment again tomorrow? (lol)
I had to add apologies for that feminine crack, I wouldn't want you/anyone to think I'm a misogynist—it's really ugly out here on the internet (as I'm sure you've noticed).
I reached for Seneca thinking of Stoics and their wisdom—shit, I should have gone w Marcus Aurelius! (This is why you should think first, comment later.)
Much appreciation for the great piece, is measured, wise and sane.
Cheers!
Hahaha comment as much as you want! Who wouldn't want someone to engage their writing so much?! I let out a big guffah at your Seneca line, I liked it.
Your point about gamete sex being binary is obviously true. However, given that gamete sex determines sex, you will indeed end up with some biological men who have physical traits strongly associated with the female sex, and even some who do not appear to be male at all, and vice versa. Given that, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that you would have biological men and women who are much better off when they alter their sex characteristics as much as possible to resemble the opposite sex, and occupy the social roles typically occupied by the opposite sex.
Also, my one issue: What if someone is born without the ability to produce either set of gametes? This clearly doesn't apply to the vast majority of people, but I'm sure someone, at some point, has been born without either testicles or ovaries. How should their case be handled?
I have no issue with adults transitioning, as long as they are accurately informed about the medical consequences so that they can make a truly informed decision.
To your one issue: Sex is defined by whether a body is *organized around* the ability to produce the larger or smaller gamete, not whether the body is actively producing it. For a great summary on why intersex conditions, for example, do not undermine the sex binary, check out this link from Zachary Elliott, founder of the Paradox Institute (this is also hyperlinked in the essay where I quote from this piece):
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex
He's got other essays you can check out on his website, too!
I guess my question is, although obviously this is an extremely rare case, what if someone has a body with mixed characteristics and is born without the ability to produce either gamete or the organs that would produce them? What I mean to say is, how would one determine which type of gamete production the body is organized around in this circumstance? Would it be the presence of the SRY gene, or something else?
Brilliant writing. I'll need to reread to fully appreciate.