"... who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either [Rowling] or I," writes Daniel Radcliffe — the actor who played Rowling's character Harry Potter — distancing himself from the elaborate essay J.K. Rowling published yesterday.
Radcliffe's statement is fascinating, because it stands so clearly apart from any interest in pursuing truth. The statement has 3 parts:
1. "Transgender women are women." This is a slogan, as simple and absolute as you can get. You could say it more elaborately: In my book, in my way of living, the word "women" will always be understood to include transgender women. To put it like that would be to make it more obvious that Radcliffe is actively involved in creating the culture that he wants to become pervasive, but to stick to the simple form, the slogan, is to perform creatively. It is effective. Daniel Radcliffe communicates that this is what we, the good people, are saying.
Part 2: "Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people." This is a warning. Failure to get inside the performance of the idea that we are making pervasive within the culture is hurting people. Don't say anything inconsistent with "Transgender women are women" or you are doing something harmful. You might imagine that it's worthwhile to speak openly about many different ideas or that searching for "the truth" is healthy and valuable, but you're doing damage along the way, and you shouldn't want that. Daniel Radcliffe doesn't want to hurt people.
Part 3: "Any statement to the contrary... goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either [Rowling] or I." There are experts, but they're not offering expertise on the subject of whether "Transgender women are women." That's beside the point. The expertise is on the subject of what will be helpful for people who have a health care issue, and these experts are saying that what we ought to do is manifest belief that "Transgender women are women." All other forms of expression are in defiance of the advice about what needs to be done to be helpful to people with a health care issue, and Daniel Radcliffe doesn't want to be that sort of person. He wants you to know that.
June 11, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
166 comments:
Were the second "women" in "Transgender women are women" born with vaginas.
Dick, even if chopped off = man.
Do we know Radcliffe isn't a transgender man, or is he just having his period?
"Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations..."
So, if I decide to call a hand-gun a "cream-puff", it is a cream-puff? I can take MY cream-puff ANYWHERE it is legal to take a cream-puff? On planes, trains, government office buildings, schools, etc.? What? No? So you are saying that me just calling something by a different name does not make it that? Go figure...
1. Sloganeering: Opinion wrapped in the mantle of fact
2. Violence: Statements of inclusion and exclusion
3. Authoritarianism: Appeal to unnamed and unqualified experts
You’ve clearly outlined the Progressive three-step.
It’s not new, nor is it even improved.
Yes, but what does Macaulay Culkin think?
"Live not by lies."
So far experts are 0 for 2020.
Rowling should write a sequel to Harry Potter making him transition to a woman, then dare Radcliffe to join the movie adaptation. Movie should be R-rated with Harry frolicking with various males during search for *her* identity.
Daniel Radcliffe -- another personification of the Peter Principle?
I'm sure I have abortion-on-the-brain, but it seems to me that Roe v. Wade largely invented this way of talking about sex and human reproduction. We (the authorities) are defining unborn children as "non-people." This is a legal classification the Supreme Court made, without regard to the factual true-or-false nature of whether a baby inside a uterus is a human being or not.
This is an ideology. Any facts or reality that conflict with the ideology are "problematic." So we hide the facts or ignore the facts or are silent about the facts, so that we can pretend our ideology is real.
Liberals have gone so far down this rabbit hole they now have trouble understanding simple concepts like "male" and "female." They talk as if these words have no meaning. And yet, quite obviously, to make a baby we need a man and a woman. Every baby has a biological mother and a biological father. That's how reproduction happens. Indeed, this is why we divide human beings into "men" and "women" in the first place. If you want to reproduce you need to know these things. It's why we have sex education!
So imagine a sex education class where there is no male, no female, no biology, no human reproduction, and no unborn child. And that's where liberals are taking science and education right now.
Where does a man like Radcliffe get the idea that it’s acceptable for him to explain “womanhood” to women like Rawling? What is the “feminism” that would find this acceptable?
Harriet Pottery and the Thought Criminal.
"Radcliffe's statement is fascinating, because it stands so clearly apart from any interest in pursuing truth."
"Prog's statement is fascinating, because it stands so clearly apart from any interest in pursuing truth."
FIFY. Not to be snarky. Just generalizing the basic point to the relevant population.
Is there any issue, outside of basic science, on which progs do show "any interest in pursuing truth"?
So we're supposed to listen to a man telling us who gets to be a woman. A woman may have had a different sort of idea but a man will put her in her place. Shut up woman! Okey dokey then.
It's weird how everyone in the Harry Potter world is insane isn't it?
Daniel Radcliffe is the Sara Gilbert, the Molly Ringwald of the Harry Potter series. Betraying the person who made him famous just to get his name in the news one more time.
Nope. Trans women are an abomination. Most regret damaging their birth body for the Frankenstein they’ve turned themselves into. A big chunk of them just give up and kill themselves because the surgeries and dress up don’t fill the hole in their heart. Their sex wasn’t the problem. Their brain was. But so many have indulged their fantasy of “fixing” themselves based on transitory feelings, on mental illness perhaps, on what in any healthy society would be called a “phase” children go through.
No. I won’t indulge this tiny hysteria. And it will never spread beyond a fringe of wealthy stoops lacking the common sense to let kids grow up before they make decisions that alter and constrain their future before they even reach puberty in many cases. What is a fad among the glitterati now will be rightly seen as child abuse and lack of parenting in the near future. Yet another strange marker of the “interesting times” we live in.
Finally I lament that for many “artists” I would otherwise respect, it appears the highest use of their best talents is put to the service of propaganda. Badly formulated and intellectually saggy propaganda. If an interviewer were to challenge little Daniel on his “argument” I’m sure his attempts to support it would make me cringe like reading excerpts here. I’m not even convinced HE BELIEVES that crap he wrote.
I have cousins and friends that are liberal teachers that teach in conservative, white school districts. They are mostly female. All White. All FB virtue signalers. All “Stay at Home to Save Lives”. Now they have dumped stay at home for “White Privilege is real” and “We can do better”. And they push the 31 gender politics. Their FB profiles all have them wearing masks. NONE of them admit or seem to recognize their culpability in the creation in today’s lunacy, nor do they seem willing to change course. I’m convinced they push their politics in the classroom. They see it as their job to inform, despite it being counter to the family values of their students. They want applause and parades, and accolades. “Heroes work here”. It’s bat-shit crazy. They polluted the Millennials and Generation Z.
Daniel Radcliffe doesn't want to hurt people.
Daniel Radcliffe doesn't people to hurt him.
Transgender women are men wearing an elaborate disguise. The "health care professionals" who insist that science is nothing make oodles of lovely cash talking confused men into adopting the disguise in the first place (this is called transition counseling, which is like dumping the word torture in favor of enhanced interrogation methodology) and keeping them supplied with female hormones throughout the remainder of their mutilated lives.
Yeah, that may have hurt a few delicate types to read that. However, anyone who expects the truth to be comforting is a fool.
How many fingers, Winston?
Why would anyone listen to the opinions of actors? I'm sure there are intelligent actors. Even actors with common sense. But it's not necessary to succeed in the acting profession. And even actors whose opinions might be worth listening to live their professional and social lives within a relatively small, incestuous political monoculture where an expression of wrongthink can leave you on the beach for the rest of your life.
"...it stands so clearly apart from any interest in pursuing truth."
An evergreen statement that pertains to so many of the "truths" we hear from the left.
Shorter: Shut up you deplorable person.
There are many reasons I think this transgender business is bonkers, but one of them is this: I actually get "misgendered" fairly regularly as an adult, and it hasn't bothered me because I am not insane. My English name looks, to quite a lot of people, like a girl's name, so I regularly get correspondence and even personalised notes addressed to "Ms." in the US. In Japan, my Korean name (Romanized), when paired with my last name, makes a lot of people think I might be a Japanese woman married to a foreigner (I am not). In one memorable case, back in law school, I was going to someone's office (I can't remember who or for what reason), and he was looking down at his desk when I said "Excuse me." He replied "Yes, ma'am," then looked up, and gave a bit of a double-take. My voice is not particularly high (I'm approximately a baritone), but I suppose I must have sounded particularly womanly. Maybe I had a cold (I can do a pretty good Judi Dench if a cold hits my vocal cords right).
Anyhow.
I suspect my experience is . . not normal. But it leaves me with pretty much no sympathy for people who pitch a fit over "misgendering" or over other people failing to acknowledge their preferred gender. It happens. It really isn't a big deal.
Fun, fun, fun until the identity politics guys took her gender away.
In other words, check whatever critical thinking capacity you might have at the door before entering.
Radcliffe's statement is fascinating, because it stands so clearly apart from any interest in pursuing truth
Like so much lefty drivel.
You might imagine that it's worthwhile to speak openly about many different ideas or that searching for "the truth" is healthy and valuable, but you're doing damage along the way, and you shouldn't want that.
Sometimes damage needs to be done.
As a supporter of the BLM riots, Radcliff ought to agree with that.
A damaged delusion is generally a good thing. A comatose person feels no pain, but isn't full consciousness preferable to a persistent vegetative state?
Yo Harry Potter, if you have XX chromosomes you are a woman. Transgender women are not women. They are cosplaying with anatomy.
"Where does a man like Radcliffe get the idea that it’s acceptable for him to explain “womanhood” to women like Rawling? "
He's not explaining. He's witnessing.
I have to contact young Daniel about the bridge I own and want to sell..
To hell with your lived experience, woman!
I have slogans! The very best scientifically approved slogans!
I think he's performing. Performative virtue in defense of performative femininity.
Balfegor said...
Me too. My first name is typically a male name and I get mail addressed to Mr MayBee all the time. I've had "he" put on certifications and awards when they calligraphy them.
When I lived in California and there was a big push to include gay people in marketing, my husband and I regularly received mail to Mr XXX Lastname and Mr Maybee
When Wells Fargo would call me as part of this marketing, they would be so confused when I answered and have a female voice.
This has been happening my whole life and it does not bother me at all. It's just something that comes with having a male name. It's not about *me*.
“He’s not explaining, he’s witnessing.”
It’s a religious belief. Complete with anti-blasphemy rules.
didn't watson just fall for a 4chan hoax, is this thing on? it's like insisting nibblers are real,
Supposedly, Abraham Lincoln once posed the question: ‘If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?’ and then answered his own query: ‘Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one,’
Radcliffe uses the term transgender women
This statement seems to lessen womanness of certain women by qualifying their womanness. It erases the identity and dignity of transgender people.
There were two comments in the overnight threads that you should go and read if you didn't- they were by Bagoh and Roadgeek. Both were introspective about courage to stand up to the mob and to stand for ones principles.
Radcliffe failed the courage test here. There was another story that went completely under the radar a few days ago. There was a Serbian soccer player for the L.A. Galaxy whose wife had written tweets in Serbian that harshly criticized and mocked the rioters and the looters. This man, to save his job, was forced by the team to publicly denounce his wife. He did so. They fired him anyway.
"Transgender women are women"
Nope, people who call themselves "transgender women" are actually men dressing up like women who demand that you participate in their lunacy.
"Get beyond the binary", Daniel Radcliffe. There aren't just two: men and women. There are birth men and birth women who stay that way. There are birth men and birth women who are in various stages of transitioning. There are people who are born with missing sexual parts. There are people born with some "man parts" and some "lady parts". They all deserve respect but you deny reality if you try to put them all in two boxes.
Hear ye feminist women, listen to the man define who you are and can be. It is science based!
I've been close to two 'transgender women.' One was married for decades to 'her' (severely handicapped) wife, and cared for her through many years of her physical decline. 'She' died of a brain tumor a few years after 'transitioning.' (The 'transwoman,' not 'her' wife.)
The other is approaching sixty, has lived a severely unhappy, disappointing life, and took a ninety-degree turn away from reality a couple of years ago.
A significant common factor in their cases? The same therapist.
He's not explaining. He's witnessing.
Witnessing? As in preaching?
The last time this topic came up here the issue was that men can menstruate.
I asked what that means, specifically.
No one had an answer.
We live in a world where some things are so insane people accept them or argue about them without knowing what those things are.
Can anyone explain or define without sarcasm what exactly it means for a man to have a menstrual period?
Well said, Lyssa.
Couldn't you just lift up the skirt to see if she has a penis? You got penis, you not woman. That's not to say you can't play one.
Not to be offensive, but even 'experts' get things wrong regularly. And 'professional health care associations', if you can find any that are not infected by political vermin, have had a very rough go at it playing experts in the past few years. They can't seem to tell the difference between data and approved speech.
Daniel Radcliffe is infected with wokeness. He plays at trying to be kind while he completely denounces any thought outside of the approved orthodoxy. He's as kind as the clericy was to Galileo.
So much for the Hogwarts education. Dumbledore should have been fired for incompetence.
I think a lot of your are going back to things you've already said in past threads and reflexively say any time the general topic is about transgenders. The post is always bringing up something new, so I would like to see engagement with what is new, not your knee-jerk reaction to the general topic!
Don't just incant YOUR truth. The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
Please engage with that concept instead of just repeating the oft-repeated idea that's the opposite of the one that Radcliffe is saying.
If the word "woman" were defined to include "trans women" then the Radcliffe statement would be true. Word meanings are constantly changing. You've already made your point that that you don't think the word "woman" has yet acquired that meaning. Please move on to the new topic that this post introduced.
Note to unknown: a person who identifies as a man can menstruate. Per Radcliffe this *is* a man menstruating.
Ann Althouse said...He's not explaining. He's witnessing.
I agree. But "witnessing" in the same sense that your Madison mayor "witnesses" makes hostage videos. This Ratcliffe actor is a coward who is simply afraid of social media mobs. He's trying to survive, but in the end they will eat him too. I relish that.
here's a fun thought
we read yesterday, that:
a) if you don't let teens transition into their 'correct' gender, they'll Kill themselves
b) the number of girls that are transitioning into boys (their 'correct' gender), is HUGE
c) the more transitioned 'boys' a girl know, the more likely she is to transition herself
{and here, i'm adding my own points}
d) the number of girls that transitioned to 'boys' before the 21st century was ZERO
e) suicide rates for girls before the 21st century were lower than they are now
Serious Question
huh? wha? shouldn't have 10% percent of girls in the 1950's committed suicide ???
or, is it All a Bunch of BULL?
tds said...
Rowling should write a sequel to Harry Potter making him transition to a woman, then dare Radcliffe to join the movie adaptation. Movie should be R-rated with Harry frolicking with various males during search for *her* identity.
6/11/20, 7:42 AM
Challenge, accepted, I'm sure.
I don't watch many movies lately and wouldn't cross the street to see Daniel Radcliffe in one, but I am aware that after the success of the Harry Potter series, he struck out into avant-garde filmmaking to avoid being typecast as a cute kid: a particular example of his work is Swiss Army Man, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_Man
After seeing that, playing a gender mutilated person would be cake for him.
Please engage with that concept instead of just repeating the oft-repeated idea that's the opposite of the one that Radcliffe is saying.
Well, that's what you do all the time: evince false liberal pieties because...why, again? You're retired, and scarcely leave the house; nobody can touch you, so why can't you find the courage to tell the truth? Even just to accept it?
Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
I could make the case that trying to force the truth on an unwilling subject can be harmful, but would be hard pressed to agree that reinforcing a delusion would be helpful in the long run.
"Can anyone explain or define without sarcasm what exactly it means for a man to have a menstrual period?"
A man who began life as female but later transitioned and is now a man will still experience menses. Transitioning doesn't have to mean that one has altered or suppressed all bodily functions traditionally associated with a particular gender.
What one's body may do doesn't determine what one is or chooses to define one's self as. A man who transitioned to be a woman could still develop prostate cancer for example.
This is what I think it means, but I'm not an expert, certainly not someone to whom Daniel Radcliffe would advocate deference.
Ann Althouse wrote "The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie."
This is a very good point dear hostess. Thank you.
But this is not new. To bring two of your posts together, the NYTimes article about the Econ journal editor had the following sentence "Economics journals are still filled with papers that emphasize differences in education, upbringing or even IQ rather than discrimination or structural barriers" as
if this was a problem that needs to be fixed. We can't have competing explanations for differing outcomes! That might damage someone's mental health.
Like Althouse, I was taught to critically examine arguments and writing by a gifted (liberal) high school English teacher. My father also raised me to value and speak the truth, even if the crowd was against me. This new horror of continual public profession of mawkish falsehood terrifies me. Many, many people seem cheerfully prepared to believe ANYTHING. Oddly, criticism of the people pushing this bullshit in universities is considered "anti-intellectual". I greatly fear that we are on the cusp of an age of savagery and unreason. It's a frightful beast slouching toward Bethlehem.
The post is always bringing up something new,
I don't think they bring up anything that's new and also non-trivial, so the responses are similar.
Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
A good person wouldn't lie because even if it's sometimes true that someone's mental health depends on other peoples' dishonesty, that dishonesty is probably more damaging to other people than it is beneficial to the crazy person: the easy e.g. in this case is women in sports.
Radcliffe is performing an absurd comedy.
He has given all his power to the mob.
Objective truth is no longer a viable standard to which we are to adhere on such topics as transgenders, systemic racism, white police routinely killing innocent black people, and so on. Say and affirm whatever it is that makes the so-called victim or vulnerable person feel better, or at least ok. That idea is abhorrent to me and I will refuse to participate. It may be worth noting that I do not have a brand or business to protect so I am unlikely to suffer any negative consequences and free to speak my mind.
This approach, to go along with a lie so as to help vulnerable people, is condescending and disrespectful. It is as if you are patting them on the hand and saying, "There, there dear, you're right, and everything will be ok.".
I said about the earlier controversy with JK Rawling and the woman who got fired that I think this (the definition of “woman” or “man”) should very much be tested as a religious belief. People who believe it or not should be respected. If a coworker believes he has a religious obligation to, say, keep kosher, it would be obviously wrong of me to constantly point out to him the reasons why he should eat bacon. But I am not obligated to accept and echo the belief that eating bacon is wrong, even if my personal love for bacon causes him great emotional stress.
I grew up Catholic on the south, where people constantly espouse the virtues of being “saved”. This is not a concept in Catholicism. Are the people around me wrong for believing differently about the importance of being saved? For many of them, it is the single most important thing in life (which makes sense in the grand scheme of things). I can accept that, and still think differently.
Well I guess he gave her a good dose of mansplaining. How is she gonna know what a woman is if a man doesn't tell her?
Men - what can't we do?
"Daniel Radcliff Mansplains What a Woman is To JK Rowling."
That's the real unwritten headline.
I mean, I read JKR's full statement before Althouse posted it here. The Radcliffe statements are attacking just one small part of Rowling's concerns and not even attacking it directly.
I find some interesting parallels with other events in the world that Rowling is a victim of male violence and is talking from a place of fear and loathing of male violence. Radcliffe's statements don't address her worries about the dehumanizing (dewomanizing?) language of transdom. And his statements don't address the her fears of not knowing which of the transwomen allowed into women's safe spaces and communities may be one of the few bad apple males that inflict violence upon females.
From the other day:
The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment.
In the absence of absolute numbers, I can easily assume that 4400% increase means it increased from 1 person to 45 people.
One thing you learn by the time you're pushing 60: Very very very few care whether or not you are transgender. Things that matter: Are you kind? Are you a good neighbor? Do you help people who need help? Do you give more than you receive?
Actors again.
The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
There's a "seen versus unseen" aspect to this particular lie that JK Rowling was pointing out.
The "seen" portion involves humoring people like Bruce Jenner by saying that yes, you can change yourself from a man to a woman. You're just as much of a woman as anyone else. You go, girl! This shields Bruce's feelings and can be seen as "helping" the transsexual person.
The "unseen" portion involves all these impressionable, confused pre-adolescents that are being told they can "transition" and it will solve their problems. If it were generally understood that one cannot really change one's sex, these children might not be so eager to go under the knife, take puberty blockers, etc. When we look back on this era in 15 or 20 years, there are going to be a lot of stories about trans regrets.
Rowling's point, and I agree with her, is that the harm we're doing to young people by pushing this notion that you really can change your sex is greater than the help that we're giving to all the Bruce Jenner types.
I think I'm a man identifying as a woman who is identifying as a man. I'm trans-trans, which is twice as good, and I get to keep my dick, which is identifying as a toothbrush.
So not only should we humour them, but we should be seen to humour them.
"Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie."
But emotions and vulnerability just happen to be current prog tools. Transgenderism just happens to be the current cutting edge.
This mode is only one of several. The prog meta-mode is always to try and impose some model of ideological purity, then use it to purify the culture and the population, the better to assert and maintain prog control.
“Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.”
Ages ago, there was a discussion here about elderly people with dementia. Someone (I want to say DBQ, but could be wrong) told a story of her mother, who would ask for her husband (the writer’s father). He had died years before, but every time the mother was told that, it would be as if she were hearing it for the first time. Although the doctor told them to “force reality” on her, they eventually stopped and just said he was out, given how horrible it was for the poor woman to relearn she was a widow over and over again.
That made a big impression on me, and I have to agree it was the compassionate thing to do in that circumstance.
Is that circumstance comparable to this one? That certainly seems wrong to me.
"Get beyond the binary", Daniel Radcliffe. There aren't just two: men and women.
About .2% of the population actually are "non-binary" because they have sex chromosome abnormalities, with Klinefelter syndrome being the most popular.
What we should be doing is changing society to be more accepting of women, not making it easier to stop being one.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Transwoman is woman
>>it stands so clearly apart from any interest in pursuing truth.
Truth? Their is no interest in pursing it, as they don't acknowledge it as anything relevant to the question at hand. Objective reality ("truth") doesn't enter into the discussion.
Politics is their truth.
"goes against all advice given by professional health care associations"
Who, as we've seen with the Wuhan Flu, George Floyd protests, and "social distancing", are all a bunch of left-wing hack whose pronouncements are about politics, not science.
Stop being such a moron, Radcliff
The way a future AI is going to kick our ass will be by being able to see reality while humans are blinded by ideology. We mistake words and attitudes for facts.
If you can plan and act based on what people actually do, instead of what slogans say they do, you have a huge advantage.
I read Althouse because she pokes at the flaws in ideological reasoning. Since that's all we get these days, Althouse will always have something to write about.
“ He's not explaining. He's witnessing.”
Exactly. This is it exactly.
"Transgender women are women."
Then why do we need the adjective?
So Ann, what IS the new issue? Is it
1) this is like a religion, and the truth doesn’t matter, OR
2) good people agree with him regardless of the truth (and subsequently demonize dissenters) OR
3) something else?
So not only should we humour them, but we should be seen to humour them.
It's the performance that matters, whether in virtue or in femininity. That's why pronouns are so important: the performer empowers the beholder, elevating the other's gaze to the defining judgment of one's self. That this is viewed as empowering to those who would undergo transition seems paradoxical. The virtue signalers and the trans people are both depending on us to determine their worth. Actors are like that too, but supposedly that's just what they do for a living, not who they are.
All Radcliffe left out was the "ah-oop" in the background.
(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman
Looking out on the morning rain
I used to feel so uninspired
And when I knew I had to face another day
Lord, it made me feel so tired
Before the day I met you, life was so unkind
But you're the key to my peace of mind
'Cause you make me feel
You make me feel
You make me feel like
A natural woman (woman)
I wonder if JK Rowling empathizes with Radcliffe, who still has to work in this town.
Ann Althouse said...
The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
6/11/20, 8:57 AM
So I should tell the "crazy" guy that sure you really ARE Superman and you can fly off of the top of a 20 story building! I would not want to damage their mental health.
John Lynch said...
What we should be doing is changing society to be more accepting of women, not making it easier to stop being one.
6/11/20, 9:40 AM
WTF?
How should we go about doing that? Maybe give them the right to vote? Wait, already did that. How about make sure they get equal pay for equal work? No, wait, did that too. I know, we could allow them to get abortions "on demand"! Oh, never mind. How about encourage them to go to school and get more college degrees? What? More women get degrees than men? Damn. How about we could assume that any woman that says she was sexually assaulted is believed! That's the ticket! We already do that for any Democrat/liberal woman, we can start doing that for Republican/conservative women too! Now THAT would indeed help!
"You're a woman, Harry" - Hagrid, possibly.
"Transgender women are women"
I always had trouble with the locution "transgender X" until someone here helpfully suggested that every time I see the word "Transgender" I replace it with the word "Not". Transgender woman = Not woman = Man. Seems to work.
Now if I could only do the same for the label "Pro Choice" I'd be set.
“ Blogger rhhardin said...
Were the second "women" in "Transgender women are women" born with vaginas.”
More importantly, were they born with an XX chromosome?
The forthcoming scotus ruling re Aimee Stephens (RIP) "...employers cannot fire, refuse to hire or otherwise penalize people because of their sex" might put to rest this kind of gender vs sex sleight-of-hand, at least legally.
Physical and mental sex-correlated attributes. There are natural trans (i.e. state or process) women (e.g. homosexuals) and [medically and psychologically] corrupted trans/neo-women. Embrace the transgender spectrum ("Rainbow"). So, normalization, tolerance, or rejection? And lose your Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion.
Welllllllllllllllll, can "Trans-gender women" give birth to babies?
Liberals have gone so far down this rabbit hole
Divergent, combined with a progressive (i.e. monotonic) ideology, then reconcile with a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion, which is founded on principles that are internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent, led by mortal gods and goddesses and their acolytes, a dysfunctional convergence is inevitable.
“ Blogger Harsh Pencil said...
Supposedly, Abraham Lincoln once posed the question: ‘If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?’ and then answered his own query: ‘Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.’”
Unfortunately, Lincoln was an Evil Republican, so I think we can ignore this.
“ Blogger Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
He's not explaining. He's witnessing.
Witnessing? As in preaching?”
Can I get a witness?!
The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
But this is obviously not possible at a societal level. What are we to do, walk around with every case file on our phones so we can look it up before we socially interact with them? It's like the Woke conferences where everyone announces their pronouns. Who the fuck remembers those details ten minutes later?
No, the therapeutic approach is simply a cover for the post-modern Will to Power. For the post-moderns, including the post-modern left, our view of "reality" is mediated by language, and thought cannot escape the constraints of language. Thus, to shape language is to shape reality. That is why the PoMOs must "deplatform" those with whom they disagree. Language outside the approved paradigm "ruptures" the reality they wish to create/shape.
Althouse said…"Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie."
Maybe in a one-on-one situation with a mentally ill person a lie is helpful, but on a societal-wide basis no, you are not helping an entire group of people live their lie. And there are consequences to your "kindness". Automatic-Wing points to one at 9:28 with respect to children.
Yes, YoungHegelian, empathy is the chaser, will to power is the shot.
Ann Althouse said...
If the word "woman" were defined to include "trans women" then the Radcliffe statement would be true. Word meanings are constantly changing. You've already made your point that that you don't think the word "woman" has yet acquired that meaning. Please move on to the new topic that this post introduced."
"If" is the operative term. Has it been defined that way? And by whom? And if so, is there a near universe consensus of change in meaning? If not, then Radcliffe's statement would be merely an opinion. As Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan once said "opinions are like assholes. everyone has one".
Ann Althouse said...
The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie."
A sweeping categorization of what a good person would do. Is it a lie in the service of the revolution good and helpful if it were in the context politics and governance? Do you support that? In the case of a sane and non demented person with a terminal disease would a lie be appropriate? While understandable, a white lie isn't always for the best and not something a good person would do. On the other hand, sometimes it is. Not everything is so sweeping and cut and dried.
Re: Althouse:
Don't just incant YOUR truth. The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
I don't think this is new although cloaking it in the language of expert authority is somewhat novel (at least in the West). The transparent hypocrisies and white lies of the bourgeoisie and the upper classes have been food for drawing room comedies for two centuries now.
What is disturbing is not that we are asked to humour a madman who says he is Napoleon -- I've no quarrel with that at all! We all have our eccentricities, and I would hope we can all get along by indulging each other to some extent. Rather, what I find disturbing and unhealthy is the insistence that we must act at all times as though he really is Napoleon.
And in the case of would-be-transgender minors, in particular, regardless of what our modish experts claim today, I think this is all going to end in tears, both for the children who get castrated while they're at a particularly vulnerable, confused age, and for the psychiatrists, pharmacists, and surgeons who were complicit in this. I expect there will be lawsuits. I don't really care about the adults. And children who just want to cross-dress or dress in drag or whatever don't particularly worry me. But I think it is a horrific betrayal for the professionals to encourage children to "transition" genders.
Althouse said…"The post is always bringing up something new, so I would like to see engagement with what is new, not your knee-jerk reaction to the general topic!"
After reading this I regret my knee-jerk comment at 10:36. Thing is, while I used to scrupulously read the existing comments before adding my own, under comment moderation I find I no longer do that. I don't understand the dynamic but it certainly has changed the experience for me. Not a criticism of moderation, just an observation that I'm still trying to understand myself.
>>Any statement to the contrary...
Tell me again about inclusion and diversity.
If the word "woman" were defined to include "trans women" then the Radcliffe statement would be true. Word meanings are constantly changing. You've already made your point that that you don't think the word "woman" has yet acquired that meaning. Please move on to the new topic that this post introduced”
But why do “they” get to redefine an age old word for their convenience? The French, at least for awhile, tried to control the changes to their languages and keep filthy foreign words out. I remember Culture Minster Lange requiring that some long invented French word be used instead of PC (Personal Computer). Nope. Outside government and big business publications, they were still called PCs (I think that it was a little after that that I worked for the French company that made a lot of them, and by then they were called PCs, like everyone else in the world did).
The word “woman” is apparently descended from the Twelfth Century Middle English “wifman”, with the “wif” having the obvious meaning (wife). At least 800 years of history with the definition that most here accept: someone with XX chromosomes and a vagina. And somehow this group of elites believe that they can redefine the word anyway that they want. Little different from Minister Lange telling the French people that they couldn’t call a personal computer a PC.
I was reminded of 1984, with its DoubleThink, BlackWhite, MiniTrue (Ministry of Truth), and NewSpeak. You could view this as the Inner Party redefining common words through MiniTrue, with the Outer Party dutifully implementing their orders, and the Proles being ambivalent. Something like that.
But back to my question - why do we allow it?
If transgender women were women, then the advocates for that idea would not use the qualifier "transgender women."
By the very usage of the term "transgender women," they themselves consider them to be other.
"Radcliff" is just another 'Hollywood Imbecile' catering to his industry betters who decide which entertainment vehicles get approved and which actors get employment. His comment about "experts" is just the opposite. That is pure propoganda baloney.
"...Having lived through both World Wars, Jung was aware of the dangers of what he termed “psychic epidemics.” He discussed the spontaneous manifestation of an archetype within collective life as indicative of a critical time during which there is a serious risk of a destructive psychic epidemic...."
"...Currently, we appear to be experiencing a significant psychic epidemic that is manifesting as children and young people coming to believe that they are the opposite sex, and in some cases taking drastic measures to change their bodies. Of particular concern to the author is the number of teens and tweens suddenly coming out as transgender without a prior history of discomfort with their sex..."
"...“Rapid-onset gender dysphoria” is a new presentation of a condition that has not been well studied. Reports online indicate that a young person's coming out as transgender is often preceded by increased social media use and/or having one or more peers also come out as transgender. These factors suggest that social contagion may be contributing to the significant rise in the number of young people seeking treatment for gender dysphoria..."
Having lived through both World Wars, Jung was aware of the dangers of what he termed “psychic epidemics.” He discussed the spontaneous manifestation of an archetype within collective life as indicative of a critical time during which there is a serious risk of a destructive psychic epidemic.
Currently, we appear to be experiencing a significant psychic epidemic that is manifesting as children and young people coming to believe that they are the opposite sex, and in some cases taking drastic measures to change their bodies. Of particular concern to the author is the number of teens and tweens suddenly coming out as transgender without a prior history of discomfort with their sex.
“Rapid-onset gender dysphoria” is a new presentation of a condition that has not been well studied. Reports online indicate that a young person's coming out as transgender is often preceded by increased social media use and/or having one or more peers also come out as transgender. These factors suggest that social contagion may be contributing to the significant rise in the number of young people seeking treatment for gender dysphoria..."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00332925.2017.1350804
“I always had trouble with the locution "transgender X" until someone here helpfully suggested that every time I see the word "Transgender" I replace it with the word "Not". Transgender woman = Not woman = Man. Seems to work.”
I prefer “fake” for “not” (and “real” instead of “cis”) Thus George Floyd was arrested for trying to pass trans money.
"Pro Choice"
I always suggest replacing abortion with the phrase "child sacrifice".
"...against all advice given by professional health care associations" - after they have been Mau Mau-ed into conformity by the Progressive thought police. What they really think, or many of their members really think, they may not be permitted to say.
"Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people."
Wikipedia: Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically.
So Dignity is the RIGHT of a person AND the OBLIGATION of others to so treat that person?
How does Dignity relate to Self Image? Is not Self Image largely - perhaps singly - the responsibility of one's own SELF?
Does not one owe a duty to one's self to DIGNIFY themselves? How does the mutilation of transsexual surgery show Dignity, Self Respect, and Self Acceptance?
No, they're not.
Next.
Now do transgender males!
I don't need to know if someone is transgender. If a woman wants to live as a man that's OK with me. If a man wants to be treated like a woman that's OK with me. He doesn't have to even try to look like a woman. If people pass as the sex they prefer, good for them. If they don't and it's obvious I still don't care. And even if I think they look ridiculous I will treat them with kindness and love.
However I won't lie for them. A transwoman is a transwoman, not a female. I reserve the right to think my thoughts and since science has not developed to the point where a person can change their sex, a male can not become a female and vice versa. Males should not compete against females in professional sports, males should not enter female only spaces. Etc. Sorry.
We're talking about a very small percentage of people and we can not expect the rest of humanity to redefine reality to make someone else feel better. Being transgender requires a person to be an adult and recognize reality has its limits.
Yancey Ward said...
There were two comments in the overnight threads that you should go and read if you didn't- they were by Bagoh and Roadgeek. Both were introspective about courage to stand up to the mob and to stand for ones principles.
Radcliffe failed the courage test here. There was another story that went completely under the radar a few days ago. There was a Serbian soccer player for the L.A. Galaxy whose wife had written tweets in Serbian that harshly criticized and mocked the rioters and the looters. This man, to save his job, was forced by the team to publicly denounce his wife. He did so. They fired him anyway."
To think the poor guy came from a Communist country to another Communist country. He was re-educated but the Party refused his repentance.
If someone is struggling with their gender identity, I can be many things that are positive, but I cannot truly understand the experience because I have never struggled with my gender identity.
If their physical appearance appears to be male and society sees them as male, I can be many things that are positive but I cannot truly understand the experience because no one has ever "seen" me as male and treated me accordingly.
So, if are we both women in the same way despite the differences in our lives to that date, are they saying, since they were not subject to it, the patriarchy and the discrimination against women is an imagined issue for girls and women?
RoseAnne
MadisonMan said...
One thing you learn by the time you're pushing 60: Very very very few care whether or not you are transgender. Things that matter: Are you kind? Are you a good neighbor? Do you help people who need help? Do you give more than you receive?
I agree.
RoseAnne
Fine. It’s dress up. No problem. Carry on with your pretend sex. Leave me out of it.
R C Belaire said...
Daniel Radcliffe -- another personification of the Peter Principle?
***********
No. Radcliffe *has* no peter.
What are the implications of normalizing, tolerating, or rejecting a trans (i.e. deviant state or process) condition? This thought process is not limited to the transgender spectrum, but includes reproductive rites, quasi-scientific enterprises, historical disinformation, affirmative discrimination, diversity and exclusion, fostering criminal behavior, etc.
Babies are human.
Unknown said...
The last time this topic came up here the issue was that men can menstruate.
I asked what that means, specifically.
No one had an answer.
We live in a world where some things are so insane people accept them or argue about them without knowing what those things are.
Can anyone explain or define without sarcasm what exactly it means for a man to have a menstrual period?
*****************
You should take your question over to Vox or the like.
Here at Althouse we're far too smart as to believe such nonsense. THAT's why you got no answer.
Althouse: “He's not explaining. He's witnessing.”
Touché!
"Blogger Yancey Ward said...
There were two comments in the overnight threads that you should go and read if you didn't- they were by Bagoh and Roadgeek. Both were introspective about courage to stand up to the mob and to stand for ones principles.
Radcliffe failed the courage test here. There was another story that went completely under the radar a few days ago. There was a Serbian soccer player for the L.A. Galaxy whose wife had written tweets in Serbian that harshly criticized and mocked the rioters and the looters. This man, to save his job, was forced by the team to publicly denounce his wife. He did so. They fired him anyway."
Just like in 1984.
Ann Althouse said...
If the word "woman" were defined to include "trans women" then the Radcliffe statement would be true.
>>> you mean like re-defining a dog's tail as a leg???
Word meanings are constantly changing. You've already made your point that that you don't think the word "woman" has yet acquired that meaning. Please move on to the new topic that this post introduced.
************************
Ahhhh...it's *our* fault that we didn't "get" the issue *you* wanted to discuss.
In MY experience, a failure to communicate starts with the person who raises a topic, not on those who are asked to respond to it.
"The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie. "
The underlying assumption here is that any level of suffering experienced by the "vulnerable person" is harmful. This is a clinically false assumption. In fact, one could easily argue that suppressing the biological truth only continues to harm the "vulnerable person" in the long run.
Another counterexample is parenting a three-year-old, a very vulnerable person, who persists in outright lies.
My underlying assumption is that maturation is a good thing for human beings. Care to argue?
John Lynch said...
What we should be doing is changing society to be more accepting of women, not making it easier to stop being one.
*******************
The "we" in your comment has to be construed as "men". Maybe you should just speak for yourself---do you abuse women?
And unless you are a Saudi or from some other muslim country where women are utterly subjugated you are utterly full of shit. American women have it better than any in the world. Or...do you have any counter-examples to point to?
"Transgender women are women."
Fixed: Transgender women are women who are biologically men.
And transspecies giraffes are giraffes! It doesn't matter that their puny short necks are not long enough to allow them to graze on the leaves of trees! Who are you to erase the identity and dignity of transspecies giraffes?! How dare you?! You will be reported to the proper authorities and turned over to the health care professionals who have far more expertise on this subject matter than you or I! They're experts! It's science! Respect their authoritah!
Nope. Transgender women are men. If they weren't you wouldn't need to modify the word "women" with "transgender." They would be just be women. Also, that's basic biology. Anyone who disagrees with this basic science is a science-denier and probably a coward or pure evil. How do I know? I've been told many times that science-deniers are evil, though I think many are just afraid to speak the truth even though they know they are lying about something painfully obvious to everyone. These are rules. I don't make them, but there they are.
Also, the girl witch put out a statement, too. She said that this science is, in essence, saying that transgender people are not what they say they are. Actually, being transgender, by definition, means you are not what you say you are. You're a man saying you're a woman or you're a woman saying you're a man. These are lies. Saying Transgender women are real women is a lie. They are lies even if other people indulge the delusion. You know how I know? Right! Science! If you oppose science, you're evil.
Really, transgenders just have a mental health problems and were treated by quacks masquerading as doctors. I'd say that most people who indulge these delusions are probably just trying to be nice, but mostly it's because they don't want to be cancelled like they're trying to do to the Harry Potter lady. Obviously, many people who do this simply have a radical agenda they're pushing that is anti-science, so evil.
If we've learned anything these last few months, is that we need to make decisions that are guided, not by science, but by SCIENCE. That "my truth" and I'm sticking to it.
The subject here is how people are not CONCERNED with truth anymore and are communicating in a mode that is about helping and not hurting. Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
Sounds like indulging mental illness yet another step instead of ignoring their lame prose. Actors aren’t thinkers. We may as well discuss the deep thoughts of my Maine Coon as he ponders Harry Potter.
Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.
Is it off topic to disagree with the premise of outright dishonesty helping the vulnerable? Can we also evaluate the impact of insisting that society express fealty to outright dishonesty?
“He's not explaining. He's witnessing.”
Or, he's defending the film franchise and his part in it by deliberately referencing the books only, not the movies.
The response may fall in line with his sensibilities, but it's a business decision.
If my dignity is dependent on whether or not other people agree with my own self-assessment, then I am in for a world of disappointment. If language is transitioning, it is quite likely that, being in a state of flux, different people will opt to for different interpretations. Daniel is making the claim that the word has fully transitioned, that the OED has stricken any other interpretations from the definition except for the historical usages, and woman means: born woman, male taking hormones to look more like a woman, and male who now has an artificial hoo ha.
On the other hand, why do a tiny percentage of people get to gender appropriate? Why can't woman be prod of being born women without these interlopers appropriating their gender? Isn't it also a kindness to tall a born-woman "Yes, you are right, you are the only true kind of woman."?
If you go down the path of having to affirm every individual's personal reality, you can get mighty schizophrenic. But I guess in our society, only members of the tiny minority get to set the definitions.
XX or xy, that's about as plain as one can make it.
“ If transgender women were women, then the advocates for that idea would not use the qualifier "transgender women."”
If blonde women were women, we wouldn’t call them blonde women?
I feel bad for the people who have had the surgery, because their suicide rates are so high.
It's a mental health issue. Physicians should treat the mental health disorder and try to get people to love themselves and love God's creation.
I recognize there are a tiny percentage of people who are born with wacky chromosomes, and they don't have an ordinary set of sexual equipment. I think it's fine for those people to have a surgery and try to fit in to one gender or the other. You're not going to be able to reproduce, and it's very sad, but why not try to fix what is broken?
On the other hand, we have another percentage of people who suffer from a mental disorder called gender dysphoria. Doctors should treat the mental disorder and leave the healthy sexual organs in place.
Aside from the high suicide rates, anecdotal evidence suggests that people who have the surgery are often very unhappy.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Suppose a trans woman takes Radcliffe at his word and seduces him. Should he be angry or upset when he finds out that his girlfriend used to be a man? Should he feel like he's been lied to? His public hypocrisy, his pretense that he can't tell a woman from a man, is not something we say or believe in the sexual arena.
Even if plastic surgery muddies the waters, and now many of us can't tell when somebody is trans, we nonetheless recognize that there is an underlying sexual reality. And we're upset when the reality is revealed and we find out we've been fooled. That's probably one reason the suicide rate is so high--at a very basic level, most people won't accept it.
“‘ Within this mode, if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.’/So I should tell the "crazy" guy that sure you really ARE Superman and you can fly off of the top of a 20 story building! I would not want to damage their mental health.”
Reread what I wrote and what you wrote. Death is damaging to mental health.
All you have to do is shift the analysis from what is true to what is good.
Rowling’s argument is also based on what is good.
B***os.
“ If transgender women were women, then the advocates for that idea would not use the qualifier "transgender women."”
It depends on the context, the qualifier may be a color attribute (diversity). For example, the qualifier trans/homo contains information in some contexts, but not in others. Fetal is another example, which is useful to socially distance technicians, scientists, and Planners from babies who are unwanted, profitable, or Nature's Choice (Her Choice). Transgender refers to individuals in a state or transition that deviate from sex-correlated physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) attributes ("gender"). The belief is that matching the body to the mind or the mind to the body will settle the cognitive dissonance in individuals with unstable orientations.
What is good is not using one's celebrity to encourage young people to permanently reconstruct their bodies to assuage a transient mood disorder, or worse, follow a fad.
They followed the same model to normalize reproductive rites for social and medical progress. And, are monitoring the population, publishing, censuring, cancelling, and broadcasting material in schools, popular culture, media, social platforms, authorities, etc. to promote compliance with their philosophers, leaders, corporations, and activists.
Romeo, Juliet, Romeo, Juliet deny thy sex, deny thy gender...
also, and this is what may motivate the sociopolitical transition:
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
And as with #Baby... All.... BlackLivesMatter a point of leverage.
A woman gives a man his entire career, making him wealthy beyond his wildest imagining, and he wants to tell her what it means to be a woman.
No one cares about truth at all. That's the cultural norm now. Data, arguments, logic, people treat them as though they're irrelevant. How does it make people feel? Is it blasphemous by the standards of modern dogma? Does it advance the progressive agenda? Those are the questions our culture cares about.
“. . . if an outright lie were helpful to vulnerable people and the truth would damage their mental health, a good person would go with the lie.’
I get it, but you are not doing anyone a favor by indulging them in a lie, even if they (or "experts") believe it is helpful to their mental health. The transgender delusion robs people of their immutable identity, and of the benefits they could enjoy from embracing it. Isn't part of the road to mental health learning to "love what is"? The more you care about a person, the more you fight what is robbing them of life.
Is the truth circumscribed by the opinions of "experts," or even "a consensus among experts"? I think Plato would say no. Aristotle would say, "For as bat's eyes are to daylight, so are our souls to the things which are by nature most evident of all."
So "What is truth?" The idea Christians have that Jesus is the Truth and the only way to God did not originate with them: Jesus said so Himself. He was killed for His unique claims. What if He said the words recorded in John 14:6 because they are true -- so that we would come to Him, the source of life, and not waste our time chasing and living a lie? The truth will set you free to be who you are made to be -- an imager of God in this world, bringing light, order, healing, and life everywhere you go.
About .2% of the population actually are "non-binary" because ... Klinefelter...
Here they say it's more like .018% because Klinefelter & c. don't count.
All you have to do is shift the analysis from what is true to what is good.
That type of thinking has led us to where we are today.
Just out of curiosity… who gets to decide what is good? Daenerys?
All you have to do is shift the analysis from what is true to what is good.
True is better than false unless you have a very strong case to the contrary, which in this case you don't even come close.
“ If blonde women were women, we wouldn’t call them blonde women?”
Consider a woman with dyed blonde hair. We would still call her a woman if she had not changed her hair color. But we would not call a transgendered woman a woman if there had been no transition.
“ Rowling’s argument is also based on what is good.”
I think Rowling's argument is based on truth claims.
What is "good"?
A baby died because some worthless idiot went to the doctor and kept on insisting that she was a "man", so the doctors didn't realize that she was having pregnancy complication until it was too late to save the baby.
If you let me pretend they are women, dress up in women's clothes, and go into women's restrooms, the male rapists and perverts will take advantage of that to spy out victims.
The happiness of the mentally ill is not more important, or even AS important, as the happiness, safety, and general well being of those of us who are not mentally screwed up.
You're a man who's not happy about that fact. I'm sorry for your screwed-up-ness. Do not try to make me participate in your mental delusions.
My mental health requires honesty and seeing the world the way it is. Stop trying to assault my mental health. Stop violating my dignity. Stop trying to erase me.
In context, Blonde is an adjective describing the color of the woman's hair; Transgender is an adjective describing the "sort" of woman in question.
Btw, I was just looking at On Tyrany today. One of the rules to avoid tyranny was to value truth ...
At what point do you tell the child there is no Santa Claus?
I am Laslo.
My not new at all perspective on this:
Daniel Radcliffe has become a good Green Grocer.
I would prefer death to surrendering my soul.
Althouse's argument is fatuous. She's capturing the zeitgeist well enough. But her heart isn't in it. She knows full well that denial of the truth leads to tyranny. And as a liberal she knows truth is her weapon against being told what to do, under threat of force.
Right?
Althouse's argument is fatuous. She's capturing the zeitgeist well enough. But her heart isn't in it. She knows full well that denial of the truth leads to tyranny. And as a liberal she knows truth is her weapon against being told what to do, under threat of force.
Right?
A transgendered woman is not a woman — the individual is an impression of what he thinks it’s like to be a woman. He doesn’t have to deal with menses, much less PMS, and women who are post-menopausal (or had hysterectomies) at least have memories of having dealt with such issues. He’s never had to worry about condoms failing or accidental pregnancy. Basically, he’s missed all of the life experiences that have come together to make a woman what she is.
So here's a question. Can trans women get testicular cancer? And if so, can they simply ignore it?
Essentially, what Radcliffe is doing is urging Rowling to be the opposite of King Cnut. Cnut is obviously reality-based and therefore he demonstrates to everyone that he cannot reorder the tides. Radcliffe is emotionally-based and he doesn’t care about the reality of the tides at all. He would have urged Cnut to lie about the tides in this way - not that they can be reordered and not that Cnut can do that. But to say that the tides are immaterial so it doesn’t matter if Cnut lies or not. It’s kind of like the social lie we have in sports: that instant replay can eliminate all controversies. We are a lying nation and have been for a long time. Radcliffe urges the lie because what’s one more lie? He’s not concerned about the last straw or the slippery slope at all. Such considerations are beneath him.
"A transgendered woman is not a woman — the individual is an impression of what he thinks it’s like to be a woman. " I have also wondered why some guys believe and are so convinced they are women.
I had tea with a transwoman and asked her why she believed she was a woman. She told me a story about how as a male child he was uncomfortable and felt oppressed by having to wear wool pants and that he wanted his pants to have linings. My guess was that he felt his clothing was wrong. Honestly, that was the serious explanation -- that's what convinced him he was a girl.
Ask any woman, lesbian or straight, if she ever had a similar formative experience of herself as a woman. These days lots of women prefer to wear pants. That doesn't mean they are men. There are plenty of men who enjoy dressing up like glamorous ladies, that doesn't mean they are women. It's not about the clothing.
The other explanation about transgenderism I've gotten from numerous people is the thought experiment, how I would feel if I woke up one morning and found myself in a body of the opposite sex? The assumption is that I would be horrified and unable to cope. Certainly it would be a shock and I think it would be strange but amazing and extremely interesting. Maybe that makes me strange but my identity, my sense of myself, is not limited by gender stereotypes. Isn't this what actors find so fascinating about their profession? That they can experience life in a different character. So, it's not about the persona either imo.
I don't understand the question, "If blonde women were women, we wouldn’t call them blonde women?” The use of the word transgender is not a qualifier of the word woman or man which is why people are often confused. If transgender was used as an adjective a "transgender woman" should mean a woman who feels she is a man. The use of the word transgender is not an adjective, it is a code -- another example of words which have been altered and are used inaccurately. We know that a transgender woman is someone who was once a man, or as they say, assigned at birth as a man. And now the issue is whether or not we want to accept the altered appearance of being a woman. As I said elsewhere, a transgender woman is a transgender woman.
If a person bleaches their hair blonde but actually has black hair you wouldn't call that person a blonde. Kanye West bleached his hair, many blacks do it for fashion, but we don't call them blondes.
Times like these make one think maybe Voldemort should have won. OK I jest, sort of, but this is typical of millennial-think and Gen Z philosophy. "Something that ain't woke ain't right." Just think...in 20 years, these people (persons?) are gonna rule the world.
They can't change the fact biology works.
Post a Comment