According to Gallup, reported in "More Say Birth Gender Should Dictate Sports Participation."
I was surprised that such a large proportion of Americans were ready to speak in terms of morality. Only 3% in 2021 and 2% in 2023 resisted framing the question as one of morality: "Those who volunteered that it depends on the situation or that it is not a moral issue and those who had no opinion are not shown."
I would have expected most people to be put off by the demand to see it as a moral question, to say something more like: It's not for me to say, it's a question for the individual. Or: This is a medical issue, so this is up to the doctors. But 98% of the people jump right in and judge the morality.
It's also interesting to me that Americans (apparently) did not balk at the wording "to change one's gender" — when asked is it "morally acceptable or morally wrong to change one's gender." How could so many have chosen "morally wrong" without stumbling over the idea that one can "change one's gender"?
This is a very puzzling poll! I think you can at least say that people are not passively absorbing the media's message on transgenderism.
Of course, as the headline says, the results on sports participation are especially stark. Opposition to transgender women competing in women's sports increased by 7 percentage points in the last 2 years — from 62% to 69%.
The wording of Gallup's sports question is interesting: "Do you think transgender athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their current gender identity or should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender?"
Are we being asked to use the term "birth gender" now? When I google the phrase, I'm directed to articles about "sex assigned at birth," a familiar phrase. Why would anyone want to revise that to "birth gender"? I thought the point was that other people look at the baby, see the genitalia, and declare that they've got a boy or a girl. They're determining the sex of the baby. But gender is something you must wait and learn from the new human being. So how is "birth gender" an apt phrase? It just looks like over-aggressive opposition to the idea of sex.
And yet only 4 or 5% of Americans resisted the question. Gallup got yes/no answers out of nearly everyone. Wouldn't you think a lot more people would say things like I don't really know what you're talking about or Yeah, this is a big controversy and I have enough sense to stay out of it?
पोस्ट्स
८२ टिप्पण्या:
If Futurama, they refer to our times as "The Stupid Ages."
I don't care if an adult wants to mutilate themselves, but leave the kids alone. Kids can't even get a tattoo without parental permission, but the left sees nothing wrong with cutting off their body parts without their parents knowing.
And Boys with boy DNA should NOT be allowed to play in Womens sports. Make up a new league if you have to. Nobody will watch, but at this point, people will stop watching womens sports if men take them over.
Progressive puritanical education, just like the original Puritans, have taught new generations to think of things only in terms of morally right and wrong.
The willingness of average people to participate in surveys and polls has fallen decade by decade. Back before the Internet and when Arbitron sent around $1 bills for TV/radio surveys, I believe participation rates were 90% or more. Now, with phones, tablets, PCs, and constant pop-up surveys a brand-name survey firm might achieve 50% to 60% completion rates.
So, take survey data with a grain of salt. The activists and conformists participate, and everyone else blows them off.
I do know that the Census Bureau's surveys became rather invasive during COVID and even they likely received many lies and false answers.
Interesting poll.
I see that they didn't ask the following question:
"Is it morally acceptable to change someone ELSE's gender?"
Pretty sure the results would be 0%.
Advocates have successfully changed our language so that gender has replaced sex. The transgender issue is better served by keeping those terms separate. They've sunk their own boat. Everyone knows when a newborn has a penis or a vagina. Gender, however, can be expressed across a spectrum. By insisting that a biological man is a woman, using the term gender to confuse things, they've gone against empirical evidence. And now the public rejects all of it.
Don’t worry lesbiqueers! Naked tits and the rainbow flag flying as high as Old Glory at the White House presents a compelling case. Everyone is CERTAIN to love you now! Gosh, you are SO brave.
And yet only 4 or 5% of Americans resisted the question.
Contrary to the media’s sustained efforts, the average person on the street hasn’t been confused by the word salad or convinced they don’t know enough about the subject.
It seems that cruel neutrality is a minority view.
No surprise.
It's a stability question, leading to is it a good idea to ... ? Say society collapses, just as a matter of dynamics.
I hate gaming language. "Gender" has until our current Orwellian nightmare meant "male" or "female"; "boy" or "girl." With some very rare outliers in biology that's been the case. Sexuality has always existed on a very broad spectrum, and getting that sorted out in our culture would be a very good thing but ...
We now encourage kids to identify as outliers in need of treatment. Because hey kids, it's cool, just like cigarettes used to be. I'm guessing the profit margins for psychoactive pharmaceuticals (up and down the supply chain) are much higher than anything Phillip Morris could have imagined.
People are reacting to the immorality of forcing a political agenda on children -- an agenda that seduces children, especially girls, to seek mutilation of their bodies.
They're not judging the children: they're judging the groomers.
They're also probably judging themselves for getting sucked into a phone survey. They're not focusing on the meaning of every word: the only way out is to hang up or accept the questions as they are framed.
Supposed acceptance of transgenderism has been a huge example of preference falsification. As more and more opposition is allowed to be published, it will cascade. That’s why words like hatred and genocide need to be thrown at people who oppose the sterilization of the next generation of gays.
We learn or find out what the baby’s sex is. “We” have no role except to convey what sex the baby is at birth.
"Those who volunteered that it depends on the situation or that it is not a moral issue and those who had no opinion are not shown."
So, maybe MOST people aren't shown
“ I would have expected most people to be put off by the demand to see it as a moral question….”
There is still right and wrong.
I rarely quote the Bible, but “God created them male and female.” This transgender business is a refutation of God’s existence and asserts that humankind has become God.
These transgender people are mentally ill. Don’t treat them with surgery and drugs. Occam’s Razor.
The Democrat Party is descending into madness. This is Orwell’s 2 + 2 = 5. Same deal with CAGW. It’s about time these people be called out. BTW, per Greta, the world ends next week.
I think you assume too much precision to the responses to the poll questions.
What I would read the responses to say, in the big picture, is that this is a subject which severely gives me (the respondent) the creeps, in so many ways. So, an issue with morality? Okay, that at least expresses in a very broad way how unacceptable this entire "TQ+" scene is, to me, including one or more of the following:
-- The transing of underaged kids.
-- The corruption of sex-classified sports.
-- The violation of single-sex spaces, like shelters, prisons, locker-rooms, bathrooms, etc.
-- The medicalization of tom-boys and sissies, traits that had, until very recently, been accepted as outward manifestations of, most likely, same-sex attraction.
-- The promotion of surgery and cross-sex hormones as a treatment for mental illness, including autism, and as a means of enrichment of the TQ+ medical community.
-- The freak-show atmosphere surrounding TQ+ celebrities, like Dylan Mulvaney, 4-star "admiral" Rachel Levine, suitcase-snatching doggie-boy Sam Brinton, etc.
-- The shrillness and even violence of TQ+'s reaction to any pushback from the normies.
-- The constant promotion of deviance, like pole-dancing trannies dancing for dollars in their garters, in front of kids.
-- The insistence that school libraries need graphic novels showing kids how to give oral or anal sex to adults or each other.
And that's just five minutes worth of thought on the subject!
So, a morality issue? Yeah, that'll do to sum it up.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people are waking up to a very real connection between gender-insanity and child sexual grooming. People have been screaming children were the next taboo they were coming for for decades, and now even the normies see it.
Parents do not determine the sex of their babies, at least not by looking at the child at birth. Biology does. Sex is science, gender is fantasy.
I suppose it's the histrionic, exhibitionist, narcissistic, aggressive, intolerant, mysogynistic, gay-hating and/or "minor-attracted" type of "transwoman" that invites negative moral judgment. In short, the fetishist and activist type. As opposed to the old style trans person who is trying, in one way or another, to cope with gender dysphoria without bothering the public.
As I've seen elsewhere, why must we accept them "for who they are" if they couldn't accept themselves "for who they are."
Robert Marshall wins the thread.
@Robert Marshall: Full Points. A+
@Kate: I agree 99.9%. “By insisting that a biological man is a woman…”.
Replace “man” with “male” and “woman” with “female,” and you have me 100%.
A bridge too far
I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Prof. Althouse's acquaintances and former colleagues would not hesitate to consider cigarette smoking as a moral issue, rather than a matter of individual choice, so why is she surprised that people approach sex the same way?
Wait, it's not a moral question?
Althouse: I would have expected most people to be put off by the demand to see it as a moral question, to say something more like: It's not for me to say, it's a question for the individual. Or: This is a medical issue, so this is up to the doctors. But 98% of the people jump right in and judge the morality.
I don't understand what bothers you about this.
You seem to be saying that if I believe you get to choose for yourself whether or not it's immoral, then I must not believe I can choose for myself, but that makes no sense.
Not only are you saying I can't have an opinion if you can, you're saying I can't have an opinion because you can.
Nobody will watch, but at this point, people will stop watching womens sports if men take them over.
Was anyone watching before? I’ve watched LPGA since the beginning but try to have a conversation about it with someone…
"Kids can't even get a tattoo without parental permission, but the left sees nothing wrong with cutting off their body parts without their parents knowing."
Is that really true? Are surgeons actually operating on minors to remove breasts or reshape/remove genitals without signed parental consent? Do the laws allow such surgery on minors without (or even with) parental consent? Do "leftists" actually see nothing wrong with that? Do they actually advocate for that? How many do? All? Most? Half? A few? Any?
And per power line Minnesota has just “ They made pedophilia a protected status under the state’s Civil Rights Act.”.
How in the world can the democrat party go that far and be protected by their news media for doing it??
The questions were worded atrociously. But still respondents preferred to give a "hell no" response rather than say "I decline to answer because the question is dumb".
Anyone can be transgender. No one can be transsexual.
Abuse of the mentally ill is often condemned in modern society. For given values of abuse and mentally ill. Of course.
Well said, Robert Marshall. We hold these truths to be self evident: It is immoral for adults to counsel a teen age boy to cut off his penis. It is immoral for Lia Thomas to compete in swimming events against girls who are half her size....I know that there are femme boys and butch girls and that they have a hard time in high school and beyond. But what the activists are proposing and enacting is not the solution to their problems.
If some adults want to mutilate their own bodies, that's their business. They can change their appearance, but they can't change their sex, which was assigned at conception, not "assigned at birth."
Working to get impressionable kids to do the same thing is morally repugnant, IMO, especially without the parents' permission. The UK National Health Service just stopped issuing puberty blockers to juveniles except in controlled clinical studies. Other countries and several US states are doing the same thing. This is how it should be.
People are becoming skeptical of the word games. The specific meaning of "morally wrong" or sex versus gender doesn't matter. The people running the government, education or business don't seem to care what people think, so when a poll asks a person's opinion, they give it.
The questions may as well have been:
"Are you sick of this shit with trans people in sports?"
"Are you sick of this shit with trans people deciding what pronouns others must use?"
The trans issue went from Bruce Jenner changing his name, to girls being kicked off of the team if they wouldn't accept naked men in the locker room. People don't want that, and they won't be subtle about rejecting it.
Well, the informal polling of the comments here shows that most people get right to the crux of the matter and understand it perfectly. Being one of the most tolerant societies on the planet, most everybody could care less if you want to change your gender or just cavort around as a man in a dress, or a woman in man's pants. Most everybody is willing to let others publicly indulge in their neuroses. And most everybody thinks, past a point, that concerns for mental illness start to assert a priority.
The line is drawn when it comes to placing demands on others, in compelling others to voice beliefs that are not theirs, in coercing the modification of public behaviors - and the line hardens when it involves children.
Stay away from the kids.
If someone wants to change gender as an adult - have at it.
If you're a former male - you do not get to compete with women.
Leftists - keep your communist socialist gender bender sex obsessed Epstein pedophile-normalizing porno books for 1st graders - hands off our collective children.
@Althouse, perhaps, at long last, morality is making a comeback? That’s despite the best efforts of aging liberal Boomers. Maybe you’d better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times are a changin’.
I understand the conflict; for me, raising the question as a moral issue would change my answer to being about the morality of imposing my distortion of reality onto others.
I think you've picked up an interesting point:
I would have expected most people to be put off by the demand to see it as a moral question, to say something more like: It's not for me to say, it's a question for the individual. Or: This is a medical issue, so this is up to the doctors. But 98% of the people jump right in and judge the morality.
My intuition tells me that the willingness to consider this a moral question is related to:
1) The sense that there is something just *not right* about wanting to change sex, and the "morality" question is the only way offered to articulate that, even vaguely.
2) There's a sense that attempting to change sex is a deceptive act - you are attempting to lie to the world about who you are, and, as daily examples make clear - there is a strong element of coercion that immediately enters the scene once you've admitted the possibility of "changing" sex. So in the present moment, when people hear about "changing" sex or gender their minds immediately go to the almost daily examples of men insisting that they have a right to enter women's restrooms, changing rooms and sports events.
That's just not right... I imagine the subconscious responding.
Morality is thrown in there to amp up the emotion of the question, so that more will answer it.
Dude 1394-- No, Minnesota's new Civil Rights Law does not make pedophiles a protected class. An amendment was added on April 26th clearly stating that the physical and sexual attraction to children is not protected. As a side note, I was born and raised in Minnesota. Our state bird is the Loon. It was often said if we would adopt the wood tick as our state insect, we could be the Loonatick state. Apparently, that is a fact! I moved in 1968.
@Meade -- *thumbs up*
On PBS this AM - someone said President Lincoln was gay.
History will show that the trans-gender hysteria, just like the pre-school abuse hysteria, was created and used for immoral purposes.
Is that really true? Are surgeons actually operating on minors to remove breasts or reshape/remove genitals without signed parental consent? Do the laws allow such surgery on minors without (or even with) parental consent? Do "leftists" actually see nothing wrong with that? Do they actually advocate for that? How many do? All? Most? Half? A few? Any?
In California they can get puberty blockers and surgery without their parents' knowledge, let alone consent.
Not content with that bit of evilness, the Democrats then passed a law saying that if kids ran away from their parents and come to California, they can get their surgery. And any adult who helped them do so cannot be prosecuted in California for it.
Robert Cook
Use your google powers and get back to us.
The L and G should wise up and separate themselves from the rest of the alphabet soup. Lesbians and Gays EARNED acceptance from almost all of society. The new psychotic alphabet people are going to destroy all that work.
Man: no definition needed.
Non-man (formerly known as woman):
a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there's no man-ness. - JK Rowling
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1668589229046112258?cxt=HHwWhICxlYbEgqguAAAA
I don't keep track of the word salad. Sex, gender; pretty much the same thing. When I must think about it, I usually start out like this; "sex" seems obvious, so "gender" must be the made up one.
I had the damndest time deciphering "trans-male" and "trans-female" every time it came up until someone here suggested I substitute the word "not" for "trans". Voila! "Trans-female" converts to "not a female", i.e. a male masquerading as a female. Works every time!
Most people don't buy this "you get to be what you want to be" stuff. I'm genuinely surprised you don't seem to get this.
I am a little surprised at the "morally wrong" view in the question. If you want to mutilate your body and you're a consenting adult, have at it IMO (though don't make me pay for it). It may be a reaction to having this stuff crammed down our throats.
We now have medical societies conforming to AMAB and AFAB -- let's give in and see where all this ends.
The trans/homosexuals first sought to socially distance (e.g. gender judgment, "gay" and "lesbian" labels, politically congruent or "=" consensus), then they sought to geometrically distance, now they would just like to abort their weird cousins. The trans/bisexuals are patiently waiting, perchance to be included in the trans/homosexual Pulse. DEI, indeed.
Trans/gender conversion therapy: amend a mound, carve a front hole, sterilize the reproductive complex, hold a psychiatric seance, perhaps groom a few good girls and boys.
Normalize, tolerate, or reject? Fortunately, the Choice... uh, choice, is not binary, but rather trinary.
"In California they can get puberty blockers and surgery without their parents' knowledge, let alone consent."
False.
The above aside, what surgeon is going to conduct such surgery on minors without iron-clad legal safety from prosecution for malpractice, and, more, without guarantee of payment, and what minor has the means to guarantee payment for such expensive procedures?
I never thought of it as a moral issue. It's just cruel to tell kids they can actually change sex oh I mean "gender." I guess that's immoral.
You have to play the hand you were dealt.
For the particular idiocy of "changing one's gender" I've never thought of it in moral terms. More like thinking it can be done is both idiotic and stupid. And going along with the charade is sheer hypocrisy.
Well, sheer hypocrisy except for the medical profession that helps people along in their delusions. There there is a moral issue. Each and every one of those people is profoundly evil. Each and every one of them.
I suspect that is because they have chosen to make children the battleground. I could care less what an adult pays to have done to his or her body. No moral issues unless you are religious. Do what you want. But like a majority of other people it seems, I have big issues with what you do to children under the age of 18. THAT is the moral issue at stake.
1. SB 107 blatantly violates the fundamental right of every parent in every state to direct the upbringing and care of their child. This legislation allows the “taking of a child” to California (without parental knowledge or consent) to obtain gender transition procedures – including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries – and impermissibly gives California courts the power to strip custody from lawful and well-intentioned parents (regardless of where they live) who may have legitimate concerns for their child’s mental and physical health.
2. SB 107 also violates parental rights by denying parents access to their child’s medical information related to gender identity medications and procedures in California. Multiple sections (1, 2, 3, and 10) of this legislation mandate the concealment of critical medical information from parents about their child, even if that information is sought under a subpoena. This undermines the constitutional rights of parents, and also likely violates the laws of many other states which recognize a parent’s right to access their child’s medical information.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2022/10/03/california-passes-law-to-lure-keep-and-mutilate-children-n1634090
President Lincoln was gay
Sullen, indubitably. Was he ever gay? Even in his youth? At the theater?
As for Cook's question. Parents are being coerced into signing consent by lies about the risk of suicide. There is NO evidence that "gender affirming care" reduces suicide risk in kids with gender dysphoria. The chief effect is on doctor's bank accounts.
The transgender spectrum (e.g. cisgender or homosexual orientation) has no redeeming value to society or humanity. That said, repeal the "Respect for Marriage Act", there is no pride in prejudice. Civil unions for all consenting adults. #HateLovesAbortion
Many people might think the doctors performing these procedures are so immoral that they want to express that judgement even if that's not exactly what's asked.
If people are confused about their sex, they have a mental/psychological problem. Most people sympathize with the situation and would hope for humane treatment. But they've gone way beyond accepting sympathy. They demand obeisance to a cause, which is immoral.
What puts people off is that the activists have made it a point that everyone else must now agree with the mentally ill person. It's gone way beyond tolerance and morphed into required celebration at taxpayer expense (amazing how many leftists causes end up getting funded by taxpayers). Say the magic pronouns! Fly the rainbow flag! Pay Money! Let the boys win girls events! They don't know even understand how ridiculous they are. Neither do their enablers.
Now they're targeting vulnerable children because trannies aren't born, they're made. This is where people draw the line. Courageous people draw it earlier, but now it's out in the open and more people are on to the game.
You cannot change your sex. pretending won't change it. feelings won't change it. Wardrobe won't change it. Drugs and surgery won't change it. Laws of the land won't change it.
"Birth gender should dictate sports participation." It's encouraging to note that 69% oppose men bullying and cheating by participating in women's sports. The proponents are, presumably, Democrats.
As for the morality question, it might have something to do with this:
Genesis 1:27 (NIV) "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
"So how is "birth gender" an apt phrase? "
Because it brings us one step closer to the ultimate goal of invitro gender-affirming surgery.
Trans/homosexuals always enjoyed individual rights. However, with social progress, the Constitution was adulterated with collective rights: Respect for Marriage Act, Critical Diversity Theory (CDT), human rites, and the Twilight Amendment (recently retracted) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, and intrinsic value of human life. The problem for the transgender spectrum on a forward-looking basis is pride in dysfunctional coupling (e.g. couplets, two men and a womb, etc.), grooming, surgical mutilation, medical corruption, and psychiatric seances.
The same for women, who were never denied the right to vote (except in select - Pro-Choice - jurisdictions), were led astray by feminists, and other class-disordered ideologues.
The Constitution of our Republic does not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma], and is designed to mitigate the progress of democratic/dictatorial institutions.
The rising quantity of evidence that teachers are pushing autistic children Into gender reassignment surgery without parental knowledge, much less consent, I have to wonder whether this is eugenics by a more duplicitous route. And duplicity is always immoral.
"But gender is something you must wait and learn from the new human being. "
Sounds like a strictly "nature" interpretation.
Difficult to adhere to when so many snap out of it.
Robert Cook asserts that it is "false" that kids in CA can get surgery or hormones without parental consent.
For kids who travel to CA without their custodial parents (such as runaways, or kidnapped by non-custodial parent), the state assures that they can get sex change treatment without the parental consent of the custodial parent, and the state will pay for it. They call it "gender-care sanctuary". (MN has enacted the same provision, just this year.) CA has also legislated that in a custody dispute between two CA parents, the one who agrees to affirm the kid's transgender inclinations is favored for custody. So, this is just another way to ignore the objections of a parent to transing their kid.
So, it is not plainly false, as the AP asserts, and Cook repeats.
False.
Wrong law Comrade Marvin.
from your link - Robert Cook:
"Legal experts agreed, telling The Associated Press that while it’s true the bill allows minors to seek mental health services to discuss gender identity without parental consent, minors would still need such consent for any medical procedures."
I wonder if this is do to the increase in sexual abuse of minors. It messes them up. Democraxits rush in to help!
"Parents are being coerced into signing consent by lies about the risk of suicide."
Are they?
I just read Bill SB 107, and, while I am not well versed in reading legalese, it does strike me as objectionable, to the degree it prevents parents from obtaining medical information about their minor children or may otherwise prevent them from knowing about or having any say over decisions of their minor children to have sexual reassignment surgery.
We less and less often, (sadly and cruelly) prosecute minor children as children, rather than as adults, as we recognize they are not as capable of impulse control and decision making as physically mature adults. We give them that mercy, the opportunity to look forward to a post-incarcerated life as adults living lives of their choosing, By the same notion, minor children should not be permitted to have sexual reassignment surgery, as they are too young, too impulsive, too lacking in perspective to be considered competent to make such decisions for themselves. If they are still compelled to have such surgery when they are legal adults, fine, but youngsters cannot know themselves enough yet to undergo such irrevocable procedures.
“ Many people might think the doctors performing these procedures are so immoral that they want to express that judgement even if that's not exactly what's asked.”
Maybe that explains it.
I strongly agree that the drug and surgery treatments present a moral question for the health professionals.
I’d like to see the results of a survey question asking about that.
Yes, it is clear that it was NOT "a large proportion of Americans [who] were ready to speak in terms of morality." It was the media mischaracterizing the matter and trying to push a narrative.
It's neither moral nor immoral to "change one's gender." What it is is either impossible or meaningless.
That poll suggests the more they reveal of themselves, the worse we think of them. They might consider going back into the closet before things get out of hand.
Lobotomies are no longer used to treat the mentally disabled. Hopefully these trans surgeries will eventually end and their practitioners sued out of existence.
I know I would be in the minority but I would like to see a poll of who all is tired of the word gender being used in place of the word sex. I find it extremely ironic that many who are so open minded about LBGt+ are such prudes when it comes to the word sex. I am old, I admit, but gender is a grammar thing and should have nothing to do with genitalia, or the lack of it.
I strongly agree that the drug and surgery treatments present a moral question for the health professionals.
It is. That’s why they don’t have a problem providing interventions that result in lower suicide rates and greater attainment of personal fulfillment.
If avoiding death and increasing personal fulfillment mattered to your commenters they’d consider those outcomes too. But they don’t.
Conservatives seem to prefer outcomes that result in more death and repression. It’s weird. They should come out and admit it.
@Comrade Marvin:
It's getting worse.
https://youtu.be/Izf79EVl78Y
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा