These days, I've been riveted to Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier*. I know one of these girls and what Abigail describes in her book fits the young woman I know to a T. I highly recommend the book. If you've kept up with the trans mania sweeping the country, you won't be surprised by a lot of it, but it's still an excellent read as the book gathers together a comprehensive description of what's going on in a well-organized and elegantly written way.
Still, there's the sense that something is missing from the whole debate. I've thought a lot about this and I think the reason it feels so insane is that in the 73-step process of arguing that we need to accept, affirm and support transgendered people, step 2 was skipped entirely.
What if you didn't know what a gram was? That unit of measurement has an objective definition.
A gram is a unit of mass in the metric system defined as one thousandth (1 x 10-3) of a kilogram. Originally, the gram was defined as a unit equal to the mass of one cubic centimeter of pure water at 4°C (the temperature at which water has maximum density).
Our collective agreement to this definition of a gram is what allows us to conduct scientific experimentation and come to conclusions that others can believe. If I add 7 grams of sulfur to a solution and heat it to 212 degrees Centigrade, everyone knows exactly what I mean. If I only felt like I added 7 grams and only felt like I had heated it to 212, no one would have any idea what I meant. Me screaming at people who wanted proof and crazed progressives protesting until the objectors had lost their jobs wouldn't change anything.
For this reason, the whole transgender craze falls apart almost immediately in the argument chain.
Rachel: I feel like a boy. My new name is Ricky. Call me that. And use the pronouns he and him.
Me: How do you know you feel like a boy?
Rachel: I just do.
Me: Actually, you have no idea how boys feel. You have no frame of reference for it. You lack their body chemistry, their brain structure and their body parts. For all you know, you feel like an otter or an end table or a flatworm.
Rachel: You are denying my reality!
Me: There's no reality to deny. You lack an objective measure to guide your decision making. It's not possible for you to conclude you feel like a boy. I will not call you Ricky and I will not acknowledge you're a boy.
Rachel: I will contact HR.
(later)
HR: You're fired.
The whole thing seems like madness because very first response step in the logic chain has been omitted. "I feel like I added 7 grams of sulfur" is no way to start an experiment upon which major decisions will be made. All steps after that are irrelevant. The entire experiment has been ruined because you didn't adhere to objective definitions.
Well, I feel better now that I've had my say. If you'll excuse me, security is on the way. I need to collect my things and leave before they frog-march me out the door**.
 |
| We added precisely 7 grams of it, but to tell you the truth, the Sulfur was actually Boron that identified as Sulfur. If you claim that the substitution will invalidate the experiment, it's only because you're full of hate. |
* - I discovered this book only after I saw on Twitter that Target had removed it from its stores because it was full of bigotry. Target later reversed that decision, but the damage is done as Target has shown that it's perfectly willing to join the mob. Thanks to millions of such actions, both large and small, people who believe in objective reality now live in fear.
** - This is not an exaggeration. I work for a very large science and engineering organization that is all in on the social justice craze. If I stood up and demanded we apply scientific principles to these assertions, I would face disciplinary actions at the very least and quite possibly end up fired. In any case, I would be silenced. That's what the part of SCIENCE! demands, you know.
19 comments:
K T Cat,
I agree that there is no objective means of determining whether any given individual belongs in the societal role of man or woman (for the younger, boy or girl). All they can really know is that the role to which they were assigned feels wrong, and their time in the other role feels correct.
What is a woman?
I dunno, KT. Is there really any good reason for the conversation not to go like this:
Rachel: I feel like a boy. My new name is Ricky. Call me that. And use the pronouns he and him.
Me: Yeah, OK. See you later, Ricky.
Later, maybe after failing to get into a blazing row about it with anybody, Ricky just kind of forgets about the whole thing and slips back to being Rachel. Or maybe it really makes a difference to their state of mind, and Ricky stays Ricky. Either way, is it really any skin off your nose?
What if Rachel had instead decided just to get a name-change to Evelyn, because she "felt more like an Evelyn"? Would you shrug and say "OK, Evelyn" like a regular person? Or would you get into an argument about how she can't change her name because she has no idea what being an "Evelyn" feels like?
K T Cat,
Another good question. I don't understand sociology well enough to give anything other than an amateur answer, something along the lines of "one of two gender-based, Western, customary societal roles".
Tim, it's more than being called by a new name. It's a whole host of irreversible medical treatments which aren't just unnecessary but damaging. Testosterone is the worst of the lot.
If a schizophrenic told you they heard voices coming from their toaster, would you suggest that toasters might have interesting things to say? After all, what does it matter to you if someone thinks their toaster is speaking.
It doesn't stop there. Being a different sex has real, objective consequences. Government set-asides in contracting, sports scholarships and much more - there are plenty that are given to women only. Do they go to anyone?
One Brow - do babies come from societal roles?
One Brow - I'd like to understand your point of view of better, but as I was composing my reply, I realized that my point of view and your might not be reconcilable. So before I even start, let me ask you an honest question:
Do you believe that an objective reality exists?
K T Cat,
Babies come from females, whether they are men, women, or a different gender.
Ohioan@Heart,
I accept that if you measure the surface of water in a can at a certain spot to be five inches from the bottom of the can at that spot, there are five inches of water. I agree that, once defined, a gram of mass does not have any other amount of material than a gram. I'm sure we both agree that these are objective measures of an objective reality. By contrast, while we might (or might not) both appreciate the sounds of Parliament, I'm sure we can both agree enjoyment of their music is a subjective taste.
However, I think it likely will disagree on what types of information and determinations are objective regarding gender (as opposed to physical sex, which also can not be universally divided into only two categories, but for different reasons). I am comfortable with that disagreement. I am also happy to engage with you regarding them, and I assure I can do so without insulting anyone, nor taking anything you say personally. Based on experience, it's unlikely either of us would change our minds, but sometimes just understanding people better is a worthy goal on its own.
How many genders are there in humans?
How many genders are there in cows? Cats? Dogs? Birds?
"It's a whole host of irreversible medical treatments which aren't just unnecessary but damaging. Testosterone is the worst of the lot."
So? Surely that is their concern, not mine. People do unwise things to their bodies all the time, most of which are perfectly legal. Are you setting yourself up as an arbiter for other people's health, even when they never asked for your opinion? More importantly, I would bet that, like everyone else, you choose to do some things that are objectively not great for your health. Do you want to be abused by strangers for it, in addition to the effects it has on your health?
"Government set-asides in contracting, sports scholarships and much more - there are plenty that are given to women only. Do they go to anyone?"
Based on what you have written over the years, I was rather under the impression that you didn't approve of government set-asides in the first place. I would have thought that any arguments that would cast doubt on the need for or validity of these set-asides would appeal to you. For that matter, do you really think there are a lot of men who would be willing to get themselves castrated just to qualify for, say, low-interest government loans? Because I don't.
As for the sports scholarships, again, not my problem, not my concern. What various sporting bodies choose to do is up to them. But if they are going to claim that they should have a say in what individuals do to themselves, based on what is convenient for the sporting bodies, then I'd like to invite them to get stuffed.
Overall, I think this is a personal freedom issue. People have pretty broad rights to do what they like with their bodies, regardless of whether I think it is stupid or not.
Mostly Nothing,
How many genders are there in humans?
Different numbers in different cultures.
How many genders are there in cows? Cats? Dogs? Birds?
None? How does one define the societal role played by an individual cow/cat/dog/bird in their respective culture?
K T Cat,
Tim, it's more than being called by a new name. It's a whole host of irreversible medical treatments which aren't just unnecessary but damaging. Testosterone is the worst of the lot.
If a schizophrenic told you they heard voices coming from their toaster, would you suggest that toasters might have interesting things to say? After all, what does it matter to you if someone thinks their toaster is speaking.
If a schizophrenic manages to be a contributing member of society, what does it matter? The people who aren't contributing, or are stopped from contributing in the fashion/manner they want, are the people we help.
I agree we should not just treat anyone with anything the ask for. We build a great deal of our society around gender, and changing gender permanently (as opposing to acting for a short while) is a long, difficult process even without physical changes.
It doesn't stop there. Being a different sex has real, objective consequences. Government set-asides in contracting, sports scholarships and much more - there are plenty that are given to women only. Do they go to anyone?
I assume you are worried about fraud and unfairness. So, let me ask you: would you live as a woman for a year to win a contract? Get first in a race? People who transition are usually going through years of therapy. I have no problem with something like 'the set-aside/opportunity is for people who have been women for x years'.
One Brow - Let me start by apologizing for taking so long to post this (I've had a series of gloriously busy days!). Unfortunately it will have to be broken in two (as otherwise it exceeds the character limit for a comment).
I have been reading your responses to this (and other posts on this blog), so I can honestly say I feel I understand your point of view much better, and I concur that we will not reach an agreement, but nonetheless I will describe my point of view (and why it is my point of view), and I hope you do so as well.
I was surprised that your response used a sociology point of view. So I did two things. First I did a quick on-line search for a definition of “Gender”. Here is what I found:
"noun
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Frankly I was surprised by that definition. So that led me to do the second one. I pulled my trusty old “Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1998)” off the shelf and looked it up there. That definition was just the first part, and includes no mention of sociology, that is it is purely biological (i.e., male or female). Hence, I conclude that sometime in the last two decades the definition has been altered. I suspect this is due to the same forces that have redefined ‘racism’ and the like for political reasons, but as I accept that English is a living language, I will for the purposes of our discussion, accept that the above may be considered the current definition, even though I would prefer to use the phrase ‘gender self-identity’ if we are talking about mental states. Anyways, rather than drift into a discussion on the biological meanings, I will only work on the sociological (and as an aside, yes, as you’ve mentioned elsewhere, even in biology the male/female, XY/XX, dichotomy is not all inclusive).
So here was what you wrote: "one of two gender-based, Western, customary societal roles". I will assume you only included the word "Western" because you were trying to point at the specific gender self-identities widely held in the US. I say this because I do not believe you were suggesting that, for example, one of these statements is true: either A) Islam is "Western", or B) Islam does not have specific (and quite rigid) roles for men and women. Clearly the same applies to cultures world-wide and can be confidently extrapolated back to the dawn of human culture and beyond to the days when humans lived in hunter-gather groups (men were responsible for most of the hunting and women for most of the gathering, raising of children, and cooking – although I’ve always assumed that, at least for me, my desire to ‘run the grill’ is a little up-welling of my ancient “Grog cook deer” past).
Continued below...
...Okay, with that out of the way I will now ask a series of questions (which I will answer below). I would hope you will also answer them in order to understand your thinking on the issue. If an outwardly (and internally also) adult biological female insists that they are a man, is that OK? What if a six year old biological female insists that they are a male, is that OK? What if an adult insists that they are 6 years old (even though they were born in 1990), is that OK? What if the six year old insists they are 22 and want to drive a car, drink booze, and vote, should they be allowed to? If either one says they are a French Poodle, is that OK? If they claim that they are a suspension bridge, is that OK? If they insist that they can fly, is that OK? If they claim they are invisible, is that OK?
Now I realize that the last few of these are ridiculous in the extreme (that was after all the point). Nonetheless I argue that each of these questions is different only in degree. In each case the person is denying an objective reality. In several of them, to not disagree could easily contribute to their self-destruction (like if the one that thinks they can fly is going to demonstrate by stepping off of the edge of the Grand Canyon). Would you think I must nod and acquiesce with all of those statements (and let them, or worse, even encourage them to walk off the cliff)? Is there a line between fact and illusion that you think needs to be upheld? And if so, where and why? Also, is my internal self-consistency and reality also worthy of being protected? If so (and I absolutely insist that it is), would you or anyone ever be justified in making me do something in contradiction to it?
Let me further ask about that hypothetical six year old, if she wants to have surgery and undergo massive biochemical treatment to ‘correct’ her sex to match her gender self-identity, would you support that? I can barely accept the possibility that an adult should be allowed to undergo such treatments, but I would not accept that minors should be allowed to do so.
And please note that none of this applies to sexual orientation. What 'floats your boat' is an outcome of almost purely mental processes making it your business and yours alone.
Finally, in answer to Tim’s question about Rachael being called Evelyn vice Ricky, I really don’t care what someone wants to be called. I’ll call them Rachael, Evelyn, Rickie, Ricky, Rick, or even Vegetable Lasagna, but don’t think that means that I would think for a moment that they are a Vegetable Lasagna.
My meta-question: Is it a good idea to hand out objective rewards based on subjective measures? That is, should government contract set-asides for women be given to men who say they feel like women? If so, what was the point of the set-asides?
My question for those who support ‘equity’ is so will they insist that each NBA team give a big contract to some short white guy that can’t run, jump, or shoot, but really wants to play basketball? Wouldn’t that be equity? Or is that the NBA can, in fact, discriminate based on size, athleticism, and the skills honed by years of effort? But if they can pick those best suited to play, why should the rest of society be forced to live as a one size fits all?
Ohioan@Heart,
So here was what you wrote: "one of two gender-based, Western, customary societal roles". I will assume you only included the word "Western" ... Clearly the same applies to cultures world-wide and can be confidently extrapolated back to the dawn of human culture and beyond to the days when humans lived in hunter-gather groups
It is true that most cultures have had two gender roles strictly sorted by sex, but this is not universal (try a google search on "third gender"). I used Western as an over-broad generalization, because even when the change is a s small as going from East St. Louis to a suburb like O'Fallon, IL, there are difference in what one sub-culture thinks about being "a man" versus the other sub-group, and the same for "a woman". Yes, Islam has it's own opinions on the matter, and again, that varies widely within Islam, so that people in Tehran have a different view than those in rural Iran.
I would hope you will also answer them in order to understand your thinking on the issue.
In order: yes; assuming you mean boy instead of male, yes; some 22-year-olds need to be taken care of like a 6-year-old, but most won't find such help, so sure; they don't have the life experience, so no; if they find some one to adopt them as a French Poodle, OK; they probably need to be prevented from hurting themselves (for the last three).
Nonetheless I argue that each of these questions is different only in degree. In each case the person is denying an objective reality.
If there is a difference between what it means to be a man in East St. Louis vs. O'Fallon vs. Tehran vs. rural Iran vs. etc., then I don't agree with the claim that this is an objective reality. Being a man is a social role that varies from culture to culture. That's why I would go all the way to the French Poodle (being a pet is also social role).
Let me further ask about that hypothetical six year old, if she wants to have surgery and undergo massive biochemical treatment to ‘correct’ her sex to match her gender self-identity, would you support that? I can barely accept the possibility that an adult should be allowed to undergo such treatments, but I would not accept that minors should be allowed to do so.
I agree. There is no medical intervention needed before puberty, and no need for non-reversible interventions before full adulthood. As it is, a small number of adults regret their transition, we don't need to multiply that by having them make such decisions when they are even less able to understand the consequences.
K T Cat,
I think it's reasonable to ask for some evidence that these males asks for the set-asides for women have actually been living as women for a substantial period of time.
Post a Comment