41 percent of Americans would be upset if their child came out as transgender

Well, yes.

One can see their point.

The point and purpose of the whole game is to have grandchildren. And we’re all the products of those who have been winning this game these past 4 billion years.

The announcement that your route to grandchildren is about to get the bits that allow grandchildren cut off/out might be described as mildly upsetting.

59 thoughts on “41 percent of Americans would be upset if their child came out as transgender”

  1. I wonder what the nadir/apotheosis of social justice warrioring will be, at that moment before the Reaction. It’s easy to be flippantly predictive, eg. contraceptives for nine year olds, free viagra for octogenarians. But what will be the reality, and will it be the straw that breaks the camel’s back or merely the death rattle?

  2. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I would imagine most parents would be upset if their children exhibited symptoms of a profound mental illness, yes.

  3. I share Niv’s incredulity. I suspect about 91% would be pretty upset but half the responders didn’t want a bunch of lunatics stirring up a shitstorm. Since that pantomime over the gay pizza wedding thing, a lot of people have decided just to say what those commissioning the survey want to hear.

    On the plus side, it does mean that the SWJs are knocked for six when preferences are revealed, like in the last General Election.

  4. “The announcement that your route to grandchildren is about to get the bits that allow grandchildren cut off/out might be described as mildly upsetting.”

    There’s always lots of heartwarming stories around about parents welcoming their kids coming out, but I know 2 family friends where this wasn’t the case.

    Which makes me wonder – was that the whole thing about society being anti-gay? I’m not saying it was right, but was it about getting gay-leaning kids to bend towards being straight, at least for long enough that they will produce some grandkids?

    Incidentally – everyone likes to declare how OK they are with this sort of thing. How they’d be OK if their kids came out. But I know two people who’ve been shunned after they did. One of whom had fairly Guardian-reading parents.

  5. I think there’s a huge difference between your son coming out as gay and your son coming out as transgender, especially if he wants to get his tackle cut off.

  6. Actually transgender people can and do have children. MtF get their sperm frozen before they start hormones so they can conceive by IVF later on (either by surrogate or with their partner if they’re into girls). Trans men have it even easier, they don’t usually get their reproductive organs removed (because the SRS surgery is so ineffective) so they just get pregnant the normal way (sex or surrogate+turkey baster, depending on partner’s equipment).

    Three are cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_pregnancy

  7. Is it just the grandchildren thing?

    Wouldn’t plenty of parents also think that their children’s lives would just be easier if they’re straight (or gay at a pinch)? I suspect that’s true, and even if not, it’s understandable, however right-on they are.

  8. So Much for Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “Since that pantomime over the gay pizza wedding thing, a lot of people have decided just to say what those commissioning the survey want to hear.”

    Which is the point of all these new social rules – the aim is to bully the rest of us into silence. The Social Justice Warriors are seeking to be offended so they can lynch, in a metaphorical sense, someone in public. Intimidate everyone else. So we are now like the Soviet Union where no one is brave enough to be honest. Slowly dies a formerly free society.

    “On the plus side, it does mean that the SWJs are knocked for six when preferences are revealed, like in the last General Election.”

    They control the schools so they are working hard to convince eight year olds there is nothing odd about a grown man wanting to offer oral sex to them.

  9. Tim Newman,

    True.

    “Since that pantomime over the gay pizza wedding thing, a lot of people have decided just to say what those commissioning the survey want to hear.”

    You get paid for answering questions in surveys (payment/entry into lotteries). Not for answering honestly.

    As I’ve got older, I’ve given much less of a crap about the attitudes of business owners. I just want good pizza. Pizza shop won’t do your gay wedding? Hire another caterer. There’s plenty around (and really, wouldn’t you rather know that a supplier views you as subhuman scum before hiring them).

  10. The Libtard press uses polls to shape opinion, not to measure it. Vox probably isn’t stupid enough to believe their poll.

    Bradley Effect is the name for the phenomena of respondents giving false answers to pollsters, as Niv and TN point out surely happened here.

  11. It’s a bit of a silly question though. I would be upset if my child was transgender. I’d support them wholly, but I’d wish they didn’t have to go through the suffering and bigotry just to be comfortable with who they are.

  12. Matthew L>

    Quite. I’d be upset because being trans/midgender in our society is incredibly hard on anyone who has to go through it.

    Mainly, though, I’m wondering about how 41% of Americans managed to have a single child together.

  13. I don’t think the problem is so much the prospect of no grandchildren but the expectation of one’s baby that its parents participate in the fantasy that he/she was really she/he all those years.

  14. Dave: I am a biologist and except in rare cases of XX/XY mosaicism when you can be both male and female, your sex is written into every cell. Anything else is wishful thinking and masquerade which is fine for adults but I should not be coerced into participating.

  15. It’s another aspect of the narcissism problem: another way to scream, “I’m so special.” And (as some of the commenters here so perfectly demonstrate), it’s a great way for those so inclined to signal to the rest of us just how virtuous and compassionate they are – without having to do anything more than tap a few keys and press Post Comment.

    It’s Bruce Jenner’s business if he decides to wear frocks, have cosmetic surgery or take drugs with cosmetic effects, or change his first name to Caitlyn. It’s everybody else’s business if he, or anyone else on his behalf, insists that everybody else must also pretend that he truly is a woman rather than a man dressed-up.

  16. LJH>

    You’re primarily a cunt, let’s be clear about that. If you’re a biologist you must know that sex and gender are totally different things, and yet you’re ignoring that so that you can sling mud.

    Anyone would think you were jealous of those with the opportunity to live the way they want…

  17. SE>

    ‘Midgender’ is not something new. It’s part of the basic definition of gender, since none of us are absolutely one gender or the other. Arguably, it’s the polarisation of gender which is freakish, given the definitions.

  18. The best thing I can think to say is that the new issue of “Transphobia” is a textbook example of how the Proggies’ methods construct an issue out of a non-issue, and then everyone else both “left” and “right” dutifully play their assigned roles as framed in the ensuing “debate”.

    Transexuality and transvestism are not new phenomena; sex changes have been done for years. Boy George “gender bent” himself into the nation’s hearts over 30 years ago. But suddenly, in the pursuit of social deconstruction, the activists decide there is “an issue” and off we all go.

    And talking of the 1980s, I remember getting a nightbus home from Soho in the wee hours; getting on the bus with me were the three hottest chicks you ever saw, except they were dudes according to their travelcard photos, to much confusion from the driver. Hilarity ensued, everyone had a laugh, what fun. Of course you were still allowed to have fun then, before the Puritans took total power again.

    Everyone in this is being “framed”.

  19. “The point and purpose of the whole game is to have grandchildren.” Au bleedin’ contraire, there is no point and purpose. The “whole game” just rolls along, purposelessly, pointlessly, and indifferent to man’s feeble attempts to impose a purpose on it.

  20. What about those pour souls who are bigendered, or even polygendered? Will nobody think of them?

    I suppose the Tox Dadger will think of the Pollygendered.

  21. I wasn’t expressing scepticism – just pointing out that there is another way of looking at the statistic.

    I remember my father’s dismay when I “came out” as a right-winger – he was staunchly socialist. He’s still as loving and supportive as ever, but there’s n doubt he doesn’t like it. People can’t help how they feel about their moral beliefs.

    For those who say that a person can call themselves what they like but the rest of us don’t have to play along, I agree. But this applies generally. By the same principle, I can call you “Betty” and use the feminine pronouns to refer to you, even if you’re a man, even if you object loudly, because none of us have the right to impose rules on what others are allowed to say. I can insult you, your wife, your mother, your political creed, and your religion.

    But of course there are consequences to being rude, because we are reliant on the good will of the rest of society to voluntarily do or refrain from doing what they have every right to do, by their own free choice.

    Yes, you can say what you like – and pile the burden higher on people who already have enough problems. People will just think you’re ignorant and unpleasant. But I’d think it was much better idea to reserve your bile for the authoritarians who are the real problem here.

    Not all transgender people are authoritarians, and not all authoritarians are SJWs. Don’t make enemies unecessarily.

  22. If you’re a biologist you must know that sex and gender are totally different things, and yet you’re ignoring that so that you can sling mud.

    And getting drawn in myself (of course), a biologist would “know” no such thing. This is a claim derived from critical theory, which took the term “gender” from linguistics (it refers to the assigned linguistic “sex” of words, as with le and la in French applying to non sexed things like tables) because Critical Theory itself derives from textual analysis. It has no biological meaning at all.

    The claim that an organism can be observably of one sex but has a “state of being” which is not that sex is not science, and not biology. Sex is an observable. As an analogy, it is like claiming that though a biologist measures my height at 5’8″, I am in some essentialist sense “really” 6’4″, and that anyone asserting that I am of actually middling height rather than my “true” tall nature is a bigot.

  23. Ain’t it amazing and lovely what bored people in a wealthy society can get up to?

    My only complaint is when taxpayer dollars go into it. If they use their own money I consider “transgendering” extremely useful as voluntary evolution. I read somewhere yesterday that these people have enormous suicide rates.

    As for ones children having their peckers cut off? Well, if my sons choose to do that I hope to accept that my genetics when mixed with my wife’s were so bad that the end product needed to be deleted from the gene pool.

  24. Dave: Any adult capable of consent can mutilate their genitals however they want, have fake boobs and soup up their personal chemistry with hormones but I should not be required to participate in the fantasy nor pay for it. Get back on to Ark B!

  25. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The revolutionary Left imposing its control by forcing people to assert as truth that which is not true is such a central theme of 1984 as to be almost a cliché. They don’t give a shit about “transsexuals” of course. They’re just slightly wonky eggs to be put in that big omelette that never seems to turn up.

  26. The revolutionary Left imposing its control by forcing people to assert as truth that which is not true

    Learned from religious precursors of course.

  27. From a 2010 Telegraph article:

    Since 2000 a total of 853 men have gone under the knife to become women.

    Your chances of actually meeting a real post-op transsexual are vanishingly small.

  28. Well, there’s all the fallacies peddled by the deconstructionists in one article, so it’s a useful guide to how not to approach the issue of sex, if nothing else. The use of statistical distributions as an argument is simply wrong.

    Look, this is the classic “believe that which is demonstrably not true” referenced above. Every society in human history, and every person in human history, has recognised that one of the most fundamental facts of human existence is that there are two forms of human, the male and the female, with consistent distinguishing physical features. It is certainly true that sometimes congenital problems cause strange mixtures. This is not however evidence against the two forms, since you still need the two forms (the disparaged “binary”) in order to describe those mixed states.

    If you do not start with the recognition of the “binary” nature of humankind, you cannot understand anything. Which is why the Critical Theorists- by starting off denying the binary- do not understand anything.

  29. Another way to say that is that this is just Lewontin’s Racial Fallacy, applied to the sexes.

  30. “Look, this is the classic “believe that which is demonstrably not true” referenced above.

    Yeah. Probably. Trouble is, both sides think it’s the other side believing things that are demonstrably untrue. It’s amazing how often people disagree on truth’s demonstrability.

    Sex is not binary. There are a large number of characteristics that come under that label – height, weight, strength, chest size, genital shape, sexual desire, chromosomes, spatial/linguistic orientation, aggressiveness, promiscuity, etc. – with a strong statistical clustering relating them but they observably, demonstrably do not always occur together.

    If we defined it on the basis of height, then tall “women” would actually be men, whatever they said, and short “men” would actually be women. Which property or properties you pick is arbitrary. Words mean what we define them to mean.

    The world is complicated, and there are no sharp dividing lines. It’s far too complicated for a brain to cope with. (What do you expect if you try to build a computer out of meat? By natural selection?) So the brain simplifies the world into simple categories and clusters, and is happy if they work most of the time. Being right 97% of the time is good enough.

    So since the binary division of sexes works something like 97% of the time, that’s what we use. It’s not quite true, though.

    But interesting as that argument is, it’s irrelevant to the primary point, which is that the problem is not transexuals, whose activities harm nobody else and are therefore none of our business, but authoritarians (of all stripes) who are seeking to enforce their own worldview (whether pro or anti) on everybody else.

    Attacking transexuals generally for the recent wave of SJW authoritarianism is like attacking non-smokers generally for the anti-smoking laws, attacking women generally for the feminist witch-hunt over “rape culture”, or attacking Cockneys generally because of Jamie Oliver.

    It makes no sense, it turns it into a battle between smokers and non-smokers or men and women, instead of between libertarians and authoritarians, and it persuades everyone in mainstream society that libertarians are not standing up for any noble moral principle, but simply looking for ways to justify their own bigotry (as the mainstream now sees it). Bad tactics.

    It’s not unreasonable for parents to be upset if their children don’t fit their expectations. It’s interesting that attitudes have apparently shifted far enough that 59% wouldn’t mind if their children came out as transexual – I suspect the figure would be higher for children coming out following the opposite politics: I’d certainly be upset if I had children who turned out to be authoritarians. But it’s not unreasonable or particularly surprising that as many as 41% would. It takes all sorts to make a world.

  31. Sex is not binary. There are a large number of characteristics that come under that label – height, weight, strength, chest size, genital shape, sexual desire, chromosomes, spatial/linguistic orientation, aggressiveness, promiscuity, etc. – with a strong statistical clustering relating them but they observably, demonstrably do not always occur together.

    Like I said, this is a variation on Lewontin’s Racial Fallacy, and indeed this muddle thinking can be traced all the way back to Plato wondering what defines a chair and a table. Plato’s erroneous conclusion was to believe in “essences” of table and chair. The modern erroneous conclusion is to declare that tables and chairs do not exist at all- and anyone who claims they do is a neoliberal sophist and bigot.

    So, none of those statistics above are, or ever have been declared to be, definitional of the sexes. Nobody ever said tall women are not women, or short men are not men. One sex has a womb and gives birth, the other one has a cock and gives sperm, these two forms decided by whether the sex chromosomes are XX or XY. Which is entirely binary, occasional congenital errors notwithstanding.

    Critical theory always works the same way; it takes some observable fact of reality, and then denies it; this leaves anyone attempting to reason about the subject all at sea, so that anything from that point can be believed. For instance, “humans need food to survive”.

    The Critical Theorist says, “that is a socially constructed ideology by the hegemony, I deny that this is true”. Denied of this basic fact of reality, one is then fit to declare, for instance, not eating to be an equal and valid choice, and then anyone else who suggests that anorexia is not really a good idea transforms into an anorexophobic bigot. And so on.

    There are two sexes. Whoever wrote the Bible didn’t write “Male and female created He them” as a means to impose cisgender patriarchal whatever on everyone, he did it because it’s FUCKING OBVIOUSLY TRUE.

  32. Surreptitious Evil

    Ian,

    This can’t be true because Dave says that midgender “is part of the basic definition of gender”.

    He’s Dagenham as well as confusing gender and sex but that’s a modern Arts grad for you. At leat he has the Widow Palm and her daughters.

  33. Niv – 59% wouldn’t?

    I bet if they only asked people who actually have children – so no rainbow-haired SJW she-twinks, effete hipsters, and barren 30-something liberal arts graduates who aren’t likely to breed anyway – and if those parents were being honest, about 100% would be profoundly upset if their son announced he wanted to be castrated and live as a woman.

    As Tim said, we want grandkids. If your child fails so badly at being normal that he is unable to function as a member of his own sex, your genetic legacy ends with him, and our selfish genes don’t like that.

    But it’s more personal than that.

    Transgenderism is a serious, life-threatening condition that carries a shockingly high risk of self-destructive behaviours, including but not limited to suicide. Even after the “sex change” operations that are supposed to help these people.

    It must be heartbreaking to see your child go through that, to witness them torture themselves and ruin their body trying to become something they can never be. For there is no “sex change”, it’s medically impossible with current technology for human beings to change sex. One can only go through extreme cosmetic surgery to approximate some of the superficial characteristics of the opposite sex – and usually, with very poor outcomes. Most transsexuals are neither convincing nor very obviously happy or mentally stable.

    When I read in the press that we’re supposed to celebrate people like Bruce Jenner, who seems to be suffering from autogynephilia and a bulging basketcase of other mental problems – he apparently bared his new plastic breasts to his son, for fuck’s sake – it reminds me of the days when trans-orbital lobotomies were in vogue as a medical cure-all for things like depression.

    Except nobody ever pretended the state of being lobotomised was a wonderful form of self-expression.

    Bruce Jenner and other transgenderists don’t deserve our hate or our scorn. They deserve our sympathy, our help, and – if one is of a religious bent – our prayers.

    The people who are cheering on transsexualism as a tremendous new progressive cause celebre are sick. They’re worse than the jeering mobs of ancient Rome who used to laugh and applaud at seeing slaves being torn apart by lions. At least the plebeians in the Coliseum had no pretensions to moral elevation.

    If this were just a private matter that grown ups like Bruce Jenner voluntarily engaged in, it would still be a personal tragedy for the individuals involved and their families, but it wouldn’t be a societal problem. It is becoming a societal problem because trannies have been adopted by social justice warriors as their new shock troops in the ongoing war against normalcy.

    In the name of sparing the feelings of a tiny percentage of the population, the proggies are pushing gender confusion into schools. It’s not enough that little Billy be shown how to put a condom on a banana, now he’s to be told that it’s perfectly normal to become Holly from Walk on the Wild Side.

  34. Bloke in Costa Rica – The revolutionary Left imposing its control by forcing people to assert as truth that which is not true is such a central theme of 1984 as to be almost a cliché. They don’t give a shit about “transsexuals” of course.

    Natch.

    Where was the concern and outrage over transsexuals 20 years ago? Or 10 years ago? Or even 5 years ago?

    To ask the question is to invoke a great big dirty tumbleweed, lazily bouncing across the horizon while a dog barks forlornly in the distance.

    So why now? Because they’ve won the battles over gay marriage. SJWism isn’t about the cause of the day. That’s why they never declare victory and go home. It’s about permanent, perpetual revolution and the inversion of all values. That’s why there’s no internal consistency to SJW duckspeak – they claim to love feminism and Muslims at the same time because those are the weapons at hand, not because they’ve thought anything through.

    It’s also, for most of them, a pose. A sort of permanent state of adolescent arrested development – the progressive credo is Fuck you, Dad!. Even when they’re the dads.

    Progressivism isn’t a political philosophy any more than the swarming of Highland midges is a philosophy. It’s an expression of discontent, an inchoate howl of existential rage, a form of status-seeking competitive altruism.

    As in modern art, which has similarly been circling the critical theory drain for the past century, the bourgeoisie must be epatered, even when the bourgeoisie doesn’t exist any more.

    So as soon as they got gay marriage on the books, they segued into pretending that transsexuals are the new Rosa Parkses, but with bigger hands.

    If we give in to all of their demands on transsexualism – and I’m not sure exactly what those demands are, and neither are they – they’ll find something else hitherto obscure to be ostentatiously outraged about as the most vital and urgent issue of our time.

    The human rights of people who have sex with koi carp, perhaps.

    What do you mean, you don’t believe in equality for koi-human relationships, you piscophobic shitlord?

  35. So Much for Subtlety

    Steve – “What do you mean, you don’t believe in equality for koi-human relationships, you piscophobic shitlord?”

    Just for the record, I have no objections to human-koi relations. None whatsoever. As long they keep their hands off my goldfish, HHmmmmkay?

  36. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “You’re primarily a cunt, let’s be clear about that.”

    But is he a little boy c*nt or a little girl c*nt?

    “If you’re a biologist you must know that sex and gender are totally different things, and yet you’re ignoring that so that you can sling mud.”

    Please. By all means. Explain to us all the biological distinction between sex and gender.

  37. “. Which is entirely binary, occasional congenital errors notwithstanding.”

    Heh. Quite.

    “When I read in the press that we’re supposed to celebrate people like Bruce Jenner, …”

    Think of those news stories where the paraplegic kid in the wheelchair achieves something only able-bodied people ordinarily do, like getting to the finish line in a marathon. Is that something to celebrate? Paraplegia is no joke. And wheelchairs don’t fix it. Doing a marathon doesn’t make them able-bodied.

    “It is becoming a societal problem because trannies have been adopted by social justice warriors as their new shock troops in the ongoing war against normalcy.”

    They’ve also adopted women for the same purpose. Are women therefore the problem?

    I’ve got no problem with anyone complaining about the SJWs and what they’re doing. But the post here doesn’t mention SJWs. That’s not what people are criticising here.

  38. “. Which is entirely binary, occasional congenital errors notwithstanding.”

    Heh. Quite.

    You still haven’t got it. There isn’t a continuum, which is what I was answering. There are two forms (“binary”) and some interesting medical conditions where the chromosomal form (“binary”) is erroneously expressed in the phenotype. All biology is subject to error. This does not imply a continuum of equal merit.

    Some transgenderists claim a biological basis of this type to the belief that one is a different gender “inside” to their body (which is also a very “binary” assertion anyway, by the way). But there is no scientific evidence of any such basis. There is no evidence, nor logical reason, to think that babies are born with an innate knowledge of their sex hardwired in, at all.

    Thought experiment: take some pregnant (with females) women to an isolated colony, have them bring up their daughters with no knowledge of male and female at all, no links to the outside world, no media. So far as the daughters know, female is all there is; indeed, they don’t even use that gendered word. Will they know anyway that there is another type of human called male? Will some be transsexual and believe they are this “male”? If not, what will they think they are?

  39. So Much for Subtlety

    Matthew L – “It’s a bit of a silly question though. I would be upset if my child was transgender. I’d support them wholly, but I’d wish they didn’t have to go through the suffering and bigotry just to be comfortable with who they are.”

    I would be upset if my child was transgendered regardless of whether they had any children because it would mean that what to me are treasured memories were lies. Or at least my very disturbed child would be asserting every single moment of childhood was a lie.

    But it is nice to see Matthew blaming the rest of us. The Transgendered do not suffer because of society. They think the solution to their suffering is in being Transgendered. It isn’t.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

    We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

    It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription. . . .

    At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

    But good news for Guido Kratschmer. As women are not allowed to compete in the Decathlon, it turns out he won the Gold Medal at Montreal in 1976.

  40. Sigh! How long is it till there is a ‘rape crisis’ amngst transgenders.
    And the demands for affirmative action in selected groups.
    Even claims of bigotry in transgenders who then decide to cross dress.

  41. So Much for Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “Still, at least nobody is mad enough to claim they have the sexual identity of a mythical animal.”

    Thankfully the Chinese have this market covered (Warning, some things seen cannot be unseen even if SFW):

    culturalmarxism.net/the-new-my-little-pony-inflatable-sex-doll-hit-the-shelves/

  42. Talking of sports, which sex are the transgendered for sporting purposes? If a reassigned male is a female, how long before all the female teams are composed entirely of transwomen?

  43. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “Talking of sports, which sex are the transgendered for sporting purposes? If a reassigned male is a female, how long before all the female teams are composed entirely of transwomen?”

    Must. Fight. Urge. To. Joke. About. Women’s. Rugby.

    People been there before you. There is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter called Fallon Fox:

    http://www.gq.com/entertainment/sports/201401/fallon-fox-transgender-mma-fighter

    The MMAA has been pretty good about it. He gets to beat the crap out of women if he wants. The LPGA has not been so nice to Bobbi Lancaster. I don’t think there is a single sport where women could beat the men. Even with their balls cut off.

  44. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “[…]they segued into pretending that transsexuals are the new Rosa Parkses, but with bigger hands.”

    Outstanding.

  45. So Much for Subtlety

    Matthew L – “Lewontin’s argument isn’t fallacious though.”

    Yes it is. And it seems he knew it at the time.

  46. And what’s the difference between transponders and Anorexics ? Only one gets supported by the SJW’s for surgery for a start, but the pathologies are remarkably similar.

    And dave, it’s nice to see that you support mutilating mentally ill people, a “Cunt” seems rather too nice an expression for you as most people enjoy either having or using one.

  47. @ian b – “Will they know anyway that there is another type of human called male? ” – hmm, interesting.

    No, certainly not a first. But suppose they develop philosophy and/or biological science. It is quite possible that over a long period they will figure out that there is a complementing “other”, and having figured it out, they may consider the idea of the “complementing other” to be a very big matter indeed (or not).

    Not sure how impressed they would be if real males then appeared, but they would know immediately that these males where indeed the “complementing other”.

  48. “You still haven’t got it. There isn’t a continuum, which is what I was answering.”

    I didn’t say there was a continuum. I said there were a lot of different characteristics that occur together primarily in two clusters, but not infallibly. There are people with some properties of one sex and some of the other.

    “There are two forms (“binary”) and some interesting medical conditions where the chromosomal form (“binary”) is erroneously expressed in the phenotype. All biology is subject to error.”

    Yes. This is the point. There are people born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other (the brain is of course a part of the body, but you know what I mean). To the extent that we can anthropomorphise genes, this is an “error”, although in biology it simply *is*, and while it has consequences for reproductive success, there are no actual “intentions” and so no right or wrong.

    The issue, though, is that when one of these “errors” occurs, the result does not neatly fit into either cluster. And then it’s a matter of definitions. What defines the “person”: the brain or the body?

    The counters to Lewontin arguing ‘race exists’ don’t prove that there can be no mixed-race people. likewise, it’s not disputed that most people fall into one of the two clusters, these are real, and the two sexes certainly exist. That doesn’t imply there are no mixed-sex cases.

    By the way, the “chromosomal form” isn’t quite binary, either. There are XXY, XXX and X-only forms, too.

    “This does not imply a continuum of equal merit.”

    Biology simply *is*. “Merit” is something humans apply.

    “Some transgenderists claim a biological basis of this type to the belief that one is a different gender “inside” to their body (which is also a very “binary” assertion anyway, by the way). But there is no scientific evidence of any such basis.”

    The brains of men and women are wired differently, in response to hormones released in the womb and then later in puberty. The default is female, but testosterone causes changes. One theory is that the brain cells that are supposed to respond to the testosterone have the switch jammed either on or off. I don’t think anyone knows for sure. But “we don’t know how it happens” doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

    “Thought experiment: take some pregnant (with females) women to an isolated colony, have them bring up their daughters with no knowledge of male and female at all, no links to the outside world, no media.”

    Something like it has been tried. A certain radical feminist tried to bring up her son as a girl. The theory was that since gender is socially constructed, the way you’re brought up would define the sex role you would fit into, and if brought up like a woman, he would come to act and have the attitudes of a woman. It ended badly – it turned out that it is at least partly hard-wired.

  49. Niv, you say “There are people born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other (the brain is of course a part of the body, but you know what I mean).” which I would dispute. We have people saying that, but no knowledge if it is true or otherwise. It is at least as likely (and IMHO, more so) that the person is simply making a “category mistake” in the same way that anorexics do, and that it is a mental affliction of some sort.

    Being “convinced” that one is something doesn’t make it so. Is “trans-nigger” a real “thing”, and the rarer syndrome where a person is convinced that they are an “otherkin” (typically an animal but not necessarily), is that any more or less real than gender dymorphism ?

    Or is “gender dymorphism” just the current “cause du jour” ?

  50. Niv,

    > The counters to Lewontin arguing ‘race exists’ don’t prove that there can be no mixed-race people. likewise, it’s not disputed that most people fall into one of the two clusters, these are real, and the two sexes certainly exist. That doesn’t imply there are no mixed-sex cases.

    Oh, thanks. I actually laughed out loud at this, it’s so stupid. Wow.

    If you think for a second about how mixed-race people come to exist, you will realise that everyone is, by this definition, mixed-sex.

  51. “” which I would dispute. We have people saying that, but no knowledge if it is true or otherwise.”

    What are you disputing? That it’s true, or that we know?

    And do you usually dispute stuff that you don’t know if it’s true or not?

    “It is at least as likely (and IMHO, more so) that the person is simply making a “category mistake” in the same way that anorexics do”

    Huh? “Category error”??

    “If you think for a second about how mixed-race people come to exist, you will realise that everyone is, by this definition, mixed-sex.”

    You’re extending the analogy in the wrong direction.

    Lewontin argued that since the genetic variability within a race was bigger than the genetic variation between races, that race was genetically insignificant – that races didn’t exist as valid taxonomic categories. You could just as well divide humanity by blood group or into endomorphs and ectomorphs.

    It was pointed out that while most individual genes had little correlation with race, that clusters of genes did. The information about race is buried in the correlation structure of the data. While no individual characteristic was infallibly related to race, and people frequently had characteristics from a wide scatter of races, that nevertheless the statistical clusters in the *combination* of characteristics *did* objectively exist.

    This counter argument does *not* in any way imply that mixed race people, with mixtures of characteristics of different races, can’t or don’t exist.

    In the same way, the fact that there is more genetic variation within the sexes than between the sexes does not imply that the sexes don’t exist as statistical categories – but this in no way implies that mixed-sex people with characteristics of both cannot exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *