Women can be men. This we know from Science!
There are those who claim this isn't true, but we similarly know that they are motivated by Hate™. I, definitely filled to bursting with hate, suggested that endocrinology and brain architecture differentiated men and women. Tim, using Science!, pointed out that some women have brains with a more masculine structure and others have varying levels of testosterone.
Fair enough. Let us set aside the basic concepts of reproductive biology, which is hardly necessary as we also know that reproduction is a tool of the patriarchy and only orgasm matters, and assert that anyone can claim to be a different sex, provided that their mean square difference from some set of medula oblongataoid and testosteronish parameters is below a certain value*.
Let us consider the general case. What am I?
Am I a black man? Yes, I am. I certainly share more biochemical and brain structure markers with a black man than a woman does with a man. I am black if I want to be.
Am I Napoleon? Yes, I am. See above. Science!
Am I 20 years younger? Yes. No one shares more endocrinistic goodness with me than me!
Am I a male chimpanzee? This depends on the parameters and their weighting. I would say yes since we share 99% of our DNA which is more than I can say for women and men, given their different chromosomal makeup.
Am I an end table? Woodn't you like to know?
Sorry about that. Ahem.
This is not freedom or love or acceptance this is simply the annihilation of categories. If I can be a woman or different race or any male character out of history or a different age or even a chimpanzee, then none of those words have any meaning.
This isn't science, it's the Tower of Babel.
 |
| All the talk we ever have heard Uttered by bat or beast or bird -- Hide or fin or scale or feather -- Jabber it quickly and all together! Excellent! Wonderful! Once again! Now we are talking just like men. Let 's pretend we are... never mind, Brother, thy tail hangs down behind! This is the way of the Monkey-kind. - Rudyard Kipling, racist. |
* - This certain value is infinity since to suggest that there are those who are just barely outside the region of trannyhood is transphobic.
9 comments:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
OK, what you appear to be saying is that differences in brain structure and operation between men and women are in fact irrelevant, and that the only determinant of gender is the body. And given that position, I agree that, yes, "transgenderism" would not actually be a thing, and anyone claiming to be "transgendered" would in fact just be confused.
So is that your position? Are you saying that brain structure doesn't enter into determining a person's gender, or the roles they can fill?
Because, based on things that you have said in the past, I thought you held the opposite position. You have noted many times that men's and women's roles in society and in the family are, and should be, different at least in part because of differences in the way their brains work. And in that case a person who has a man's body, but a woman's brain, could have some serious issues in trying to fulfill their social and familial duties.
So which is it, KT? What do you actually believe?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that this is utter fantasy. It's a delusion on the order of saying you are Napoleon or younger or a chimpanzee. In order to disprove it, you need objective measures to provide test parameters.
You can't do that because we've dispensed with objective test parameters. All that matters is the stated identification of sex. This isn't measurable, it's the redefinition of nouns to the point where they are useless.
See today's post.
Tim, if you're asking, "How do you know if someone is a woman," then I'd suggest you look in your pants.
Hint: You're not one.
You could also look at your DNA.
This post reads like the bitter whine of someone with a high-school knowledge of biology, who has since discovered that reality is not as simple as high-school textbooks make it out to be. Imagine the shock of such a person when they find out there are no frictionless surfaces.
You're like a person who says that everyone five-foot-six or below is "short", everyone five-foot-seven or above is "tall" (yes, that was deliberate), and no one who is short can ever be tall, or vice-versa.
... then I'd suggest you look in your pants.
You could also look at your DNA.
How about for the people where those two say what you would think to be different things?
"Science!"
It warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart to see you using my favorite mockery of scientism.
"Am I a male chimpanzee? This depends on the parameters and their weighting. I would say yes since we share 99% of our DNA ..."
While DarwinDefenders (spp Darwin defensor) love to assert that, as though it would prove their silly myth were it true, it's not actually true.
Tim, I addressed those neurological articles today, but I'll put the BLUF here.
There's a fundamental problem with the Functional Neurology article. For any given F2M, do you have the experimental data from when they were in the womb to make the case that the suggested mechanism occurred? No. And yet they feel confident in saying that there is no evidence otherwise. Actually, there's no evidence for their case. A candidate mechanism with no empirical evidence to support it isn't science, it's wish fulfillment.
Ilíon,
While DarwinDefenders (spp Darwin defensor) love to assert that, as though it would prove their silly myth were it true, it's not actually true.
Darwin is dead and buried. He was wrong about a great many things. He neither needs nor deserves a defense.
Evolutionary Theory is science, not mathematics nor alcohol, so of course can not be proven.
K T Cat,
I think the skepticism you list in that last comment is well-placed. If the answer looks too simple, too easy, too pat, then it probably is.
Post a Comment