OPINION — “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
Astonishingly, this quote from George Orwell’s novel “1984” is being brought to life today in California. Transgender newspeak is also alive and well in New York City, Virginia and in public school textbooks across the country.
For most progressives, gender is neither binary nor biological. It’s a mental state, an individual choice. For them, the best way to control your “thoughtcrimes” about gender is to begin by controlling your words.
Never a state to tolerate “thoughtcrime,” California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation last year threatening jail time for health care professionals who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse to use a patient’s preferred pronouns.
New York City’s Commission on Human Rights issued guidelines advising employers, landlords and business owners who intentionally use the wrong pronoun with transgender workers and tenants that they face potential fines of as much as $250,000.
Embrace transgender newspeak or take your pick: jail time in California or a huge fine in New York City.
More subtly, Virginia’s Fairfax County public school system eliminated the phrase “biological gender” from its family life curriculum, replacing it with “sex assigned at birth.”
Across the country, educators and their textbooks are telling students that gender is a spectrum, that individuals can choose to be anywhere along it. Most parents are not aware of this stealth transgender newspeak aimed at their children. And even when they are, many districts don’t allow their children to opt out.
Orwell saw this coming: “We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us. … We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. Within twenty years at most, the huge and simple question ‘Was life better before the Revolution than it is now?’ will have ceased once and for all to be answerable.”
We all use words that reflect our views on many topics. Using the phrase “affirmative action” indicates one worldview; saying instead “racial preferences” shows another.
When discussing abortion, the word “fetus” is a common pro-choice phrase while “baby” is used by those with pro-life beliefs. Use either phrase in public discourse and listeners know your point of view.
Many of those with strong pro-life views are motivated by their religious beliefs. Likewise many with religious convictions see gender as God-given, biological and binary. For them, to be required to state otherwise is tantamount to idol worship.
The First Amendment’s free exercise of religion is needlessly and intentionally being subverted. It’s easy to characterize transgender newspeak as hardly more than forced conversion to a state religion.
The Supreme Court held in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) a student’s right to refuse to salute an American flag even on nonreligious grounds. Justice Robert H. Jackson declared: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Yet this is exactly what forced reference to someone else as “ze,” “sie,” “hir,” “co,” “ev,” “xe,” “thon” or “they” entails. Feel free to use these pronouns out of common courtesy. But when government compels their use, it is prescribing “politics, religion or other matters of opinion” in defiance of the Constitution.
Philosopher John Locke wrote: “Words in their primary or immediate signification, stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them.” If government can compel the use of certain words, it controls thought and forces those who differ into silence. That clearly is the goal of transgender newspeak advocates.
We can have compassion for those who struggle with gender identity. At the same time, we must reject the progressive impulse to eliminate words from public discourse to which they object.
Controlling words in California and New York City is the first step toward criminalizing what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime.” If allowed to stand, it will be progressives’ first step toward dismantling Constitutional protections we all too often take for granted.
Orwell’s novel “1984” was written to expose the evils of totalitarianism and Communism. While today’s progressives see themselves battling for individual freedom, their tactics and actions smack of the totalitarian evils they claim to oppose.
The next time you hear today’s Republican administration called fascist, think of leftist mobs intimidating Republican legislators, think of Antifa attacking passersby in downtown Portland, Oregon, and think of Hilary Clinton defending threats and harassments.
Progressive transgender newspeak clearly violates Justice Jackson’s admonition that “that no official…can force citizens to confess by word” their faith in this new secular religion.
Stand by for a case sure to come to a Supreme Court that respects the Constitution as written.
Howard Sierer is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.
Email: [email protected]
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2018, all rights reserved.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2018, all rights reserved.
Imagine being so bigoted that your frothing at the mouth brain-cell draining angry over not being able to use slurs at people.
Read my comment again slowly, I know that words can be complicated but these ones are small.
There is only a subtle veneer of decency in Howard’s essay that hides the sense of lost privilege to stigmatize/insult a group of minorities.
I can’t wait till the GOP libertarians campaign on being able to day the N word.
Cody, did you mean “you’re”? As it is, your comment just looks like an incomplete sentence. Type slowly. I know that words can be complicated, but keep practicing. You can do this!
Yes not spelling something properly and advocating for biggoty are on the same level. Your totally not just dodging having to defend that or anything.
God created 2 genders.. democrats created the rest..
The idea that your particular “god” created anything is unprovable (not falsifiable) and therefore shouldn’t be used to oppress people in a logical democracy. Instead we do have science and it provides conclusions vastly different than your comments and Howard’s.
Truth really bugs you doesn’t it? God created 2 genders.. democrats created the rest..
You probably believe that painting your Timex gold turns it into a Rolex too! Or putting stickers on your huffy mountain bike turns it into a Trek Butterfly. It doesn’t change them any more than cutting off your manhood makes you a woman. You are either xx or xy. and you can NEVER change that!
John used the same lame bike insults. Yours is written better but still falls flat.
Not everyone is XX or XY:
Please take the time to educate yourself.
Please show me scientific proof of god and his almighty plan for two sexes and genders.
Until then I will rely on the scientific research that shows sex isn’t binary at either the genetic or physical level nor is gender.
Don’t make me laugh.. facts are facts and you can’t handle it..
Show me the facts about god then? Should be simple given how adament you are. Actually behave rationally and logically for once here and support tge veracity of your claims.
PS: facts don’t include references to the bible, etc, as that is faith based not fact based.
Don’t need to.. you exist don’t you? That’s by the “GRACE OF GOD!” There’s your proof!
All definitions below are taken from Webster’s Dictionary:
Gay: Excited with merriment; manifesting sportiveness or delight; inspiring delight; livery; merry. “Don we now our gay apparel”
Queer: 1. At variance with what is usual or normal; differing in some odd way from what is ordinary; odd; singular; strange; whimsical; as, a queer story or act. 2. Mysterious; suspicious; questionable; as, a queer transaction.
Dike: (See Dyke) The spelling “dyke” is restricted by some to the geological meaning. 1. A ditch; a channel for water made by digging. 2. An embankment to prevent inundations; a levee.
So when we refer to the author’s words on the subject of Transgender Newspeak, we also have to remember words that were hijacked by individuals that now refer to their sexual specific preferences.
Actually many of these words were reclaimed after citizens used them as insults for years. The LGBTQ community has a ling history of reclaiming such words to destigmatize their lives.
I certainly agree with what Utahguns points out. Waaaay back in the early 50’s I lived with my grandparents. As young as I was, I remember hearing them speak about all the “gay times” they had when dating as well as in their marriage. My grandfather was in sales and on more than one occasion would say he hoped no one would “queer” the latest deal he was working on. If these words weren’t hijacked……..how did their current ‘definitions’ come into being? Could it be that maybe Webster came to his senses? Don’t think so.
Perfect example of what I was saying, Pa Triot…..
With all respect to B&F, I believe that he’s much younger in age compared to the generation that used these “words” in different contexts, thus his comments.
Baby boomers used these words many times to describe situations and feelings that had nothing to do with sexual preferences.
For example, while with a group of friends, we encountered a gentleman at a night club in the early seventies that made the comment that he was “gay”. We all responded and said that we were “happy for him” because we thought he was referring to his positive outlook and contentment.
We all looked at each other in amazement. and ordered another round of drinks.
Your comment about Webster is correct. He didn’t cave to political correctness.
Words have multiple meanings and histories outside official dictionaries. Most of the words highlighted had the current implications since the early to mid 20th century:
Just a few. Just because you didn’t use them doesn’t mean their multiple meanings didn’t exist then.
Homosexuals have tried anything and everything in order to try and ‘prove’ they are born homosexual. No ‘scientific’ study performed by homosexuals or homosexual advocates has made through the scientific method and has never been repeated, which leads us to believe homosexuals knowingly manipulate studies to come out as inclusive and they publish the very inconclusive study as absolute fact.
Why do homosexuals follow their desires but not their gender?
After all, we’re not sure if their desires were designed or the result of their upbringing, but we are certain that their anatomy is designed. So why not follow your anatomy rather than your desires? Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal. Even IF desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is.
First, homosexuals and transgender are not the same issue, hence the T in LGBTQi.
Your claim about studies is incoherent. And from what I can figure decipher its all assumptions.
Do we have studies: yes. Is it conclusive: not yet.
Twins provide an interesting analysis as it should control for environment:
Here is an article with more:
We have plenty of studies that support the conclusion that there isa biological component to homosexuality and sexuality in general. We have evidence of genetic differences, prenatal hormone exposure, etc.
More importantly science does not use or support the idea of “natural design”. That is a psuedoscientific claim.
Are you saying even heterosexuality is a choice when you say “Even IF desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is”? Seems like you are. Which is also inconsistent with science.
The entire “gay agenda” conspiracies crack me up. Maybe when we stop trying to regulate and police citizens sexuality and bodies than we can start to take any concerns about a “gay agenda” seriously. But the only agenda I have seen is one of citizens wanting individual liberty equivalent to their heterosexual neighbors.
Rather than call them progressives I’d say the more fitting term is post-modernist leftists. Most of them are lunatics that have lost touch with reality.
I can accept the leftist belief that gender is a social construct, therefore there is no such a thing as a “transgender” person. Plainly, what these people are are transsexuals. They are men and women that want to change their biological sex. I’m convinced it’s a very severe mental illness and those people are delusional. If they aren’t transsexuals then they are simply crossdressers. There is no such a thing as a transgender. It’s a figment of the post-modernist leftist imagination, and a product of them losing touch with reality.
Well, Howard, since you had to bring up abortion I’ll throw out again why I’m in favor of it. I know a lot of you “conservatives” are against it because of your Jesus and all that. I’m in favor of it because I’m in favor of eugenics (to a degree). And there’s really no nice way to say it… but a lot of undesirables tend to self abort. I mean, it isn’t exactly the cream of the crop of humanity that’s getting the vast majority of abortions. I’d say my position is far far more conservative than you Jesus folks. And I respect you people’s opinion, but at the end of the day it simply isn’t very practical.
When did you get rid of your “s” Bob? Comment vs Comments
I lost the login pw for ‘comments’, but I figure this is just as good 😉
Next will be Commenter
Use my password! EasyPeasy
My pw for all my accts is: 123456
its the most secure pw in the world
It isnt because of Jesus that people are against it.
It actually goes against God. It is because of Jesus there is hope and their sins will be forgiven if they choose to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and turn from the transgression.
Yeah, I just realized my view there is a little too close to the mainstream republican party. They believe those born poor have no inherent value unless they can in someway be exploited for cheap labor, otherwise just kill them or throw them in prisons to rot. I really don’t like having things like that in common w/ mainstream republicans, because I’m typically a very empathetic person. I actually hate that babies are basically slaughtered like pigs in the abortion process. It’s one of those ice cold realities of the world. LBA, I wish I thought humans had inherent value more than any other animal, but I’m just a bit too jaded to see it that way. I believe eugenics could be used as a tool to prevent a lot of suffering as well. Who knows, maybe someday ol’ Jesus will float down and give me some kind of sign. But I’m not holding my breath. Cheers LBA.
Dick the Butcher had it right!
It sure pays to have a hobby
Being forced to recognize something or somebody that they are not, is insane. Orwell saw it coming, what will it lead to next?
I’ve watched some youtube vids about “transgender” people talking about their “gender confirmation surgeries”, and listening to them talk about their “new penis” or “new vagina”, well, you can imagine the look on my face. These poor deluded souls actually believe they have changed their sex with these gruesome and barbaric mutilations they call “gender confirmation surgeries”. When society is encouraging mentally ill people in their delusions society has become equally delusional and mentally ill. It can be an insane world. I don’t understand it.
Oh I missed those thank goodness but “Undoomed” has some good commentary on various videos from the wannabes as you describe.
I agree with your conclusion that “you don’t understand it”. I also take your claims to believe in the value eugenics as an honest statement. Its ultimately a despicable claim given our country’s history of using it against anyone society may have deemed degenerate or unsavory: homosexuals, promiscuous women, low IQ, etc. We see such language in the comments on this site.
Most people don’t know that our country’s eugenics statutes actually inspired the Nazis. We like to bury details lack that. But you know, lets joke about eugenics because clearly it can’t influence anything, right?
I actually don’t joke about it at all. I figured someone would bring up ‘nazis’. Try to be more original, bike. Not every opinion you disagree with can be a ‘nazi opinion’. Or maybe in your mind it can? 😉
I bet you can’t find any evidence that “transgenders” aren’t mentally ill, either. They need psychiatry or intensive therapy, not a sex change. cheers.
Ugh, the field of pyschiatry supports gender reassignment for those who have gender disphoria:
Your concept of mental illness is based on stigmatizing individuals not professional standards and understanding. Yes, thos who experience gender dismorphia are experiencing a mental health condition that can benefit from therapy. But you are wrong scientifically and psychiatrically in your generic claims about mental illness. Psychiatry and the therapy fields recognize the difference between pathological disorders like schizophrenia and conditions like gender dysmorphia. They aren’t remotely the same issues in kind or type.
Too many Americans have used an antiquated, rudimentary understanding of psychiatry to stigmatize and treat individuals prejudicially. Anyone that cares about mental health knows that is harmful to people experiencing these conditions.
PS…you brought up eugenics voluntarily. Not everything is Nazi but you simply can’t extract the field and practice of eugenics from our barbaric history and Nazism. They are too interconnected. Being original is low on my concerns when it comes to that particular issue. And its a lie to falsely claim I even remotely believe or act like “every opinion (I)you disagree with can be a ‘nazi opinion.” But issues and behaviors with an explicit relationship to Nazism are fair game to highlight.
Gender reassignment surgery is enabling sick individuals to live inside there hallucinations, that is cruel, making somebody suffer more by encouraging their delusional psychosis. B&f, the only degree you possess is your deodorant!
You are a scientifically illiterate troll. Educate yourself on science and learn to actually provide valid arguments and maybe people will take you seriously.
And you are either “John” or are impersonating his lamest posts to a T.
I met an incel nonbinary a while back. Still I guess.
I find government requirements like those problematic given our specific history and different constitutional foundations.
But that is fundamentally different than trying to claim the science is consistent with such prejudiced as we saw hinted at in the piece and that are clear in the comments. The fact is, biological sciences recognize (A) sex is not binary and (B) gender is socially not biologically constrained (ie fluid). On top of that mental health professionals recognize that the gender disphoria that transgender individuals experience is mental health condition not a disorder. The field recognizes the condition causes emotional distress but its not pathological (ie schizophrenia, etc). We saw a similar etiology with homosexuality in the past.
And we have evidence from many other cultures of how society respectfully incorporates those who are intersex (many variants) and transgender. Our protestant history just has a specific, lasting control over how we view anything traditionally (ie culture) in the realm of sex.
This issue just highlights the awkward relationship between religion and traditional conservative/libertarian ideals. Yes, Howard has a fair argument concerning government influence on the mandating language. But its a particularly ironic one given the way modern conservatives have legislated and policed our citizen’s bodies. Until individuals like Howard stop ignoring real science and making pseudoscientific claims then the overall argument about liberty is flawed. Mutual respect begins to mature when individual liberty is available to all, especially given our country has actively oppressed many of these groups (and still do).
Bike, do you realize it’s people like you that got us trump?
There are 2 sexes and there are 2 genders. Intersex is a birth defect. People with an intersex deformity are simply an error of nature. You don’t get to make up your own science. I’m no fan of howard, but you can be ridiculous, bike. smh
I love that you know why we have Trump,as if millions of people voted for a singular reason. But I would agree that many Trump supporters are willing to abandon science in favor of a “post-truth” politics that values prejudice over fact; you are doing exhibiting that exact trait.
And more importantly, you conflate your values with science. Science doesn’t define the many intersex genotypes and phenotypes as defects. It just recognizes their existence and prevalence. Real science doesn’t support the concept of “error of nature”.
And you also don’t understand gender and the plentiful examples across the world of its non-binary reality. Science isn’t constrained by Western values.
If you really care about scientific literacy I challenge you to actual educate yourself on the subject. Science and biology aren’t as simplistic as the texts you learned from in grade school claimed.
Bike, if an animal is unable to breed and pass on it’s genetics, which is likely gonna be the case with the vast majority of these “intersex” humans, then by their own nature they are defective. If they find some way to allow them to breed with massive scientific intervention then that’s just a perversion of science. The natural world has a way of weeding out these sort of defects. Total BS about a “spectrum” of biological sex. They can either produce sperm as a male or carry a child as a female. If they are unable to do either they are simply a defective human, a genetic dead end, and an error of nature. You’re a bit out of touch with reality for thinking otherwise. Just bc something is written in some loony leftist science journal does not make it true. These publications come with plenty of biases.
Oh, and the science of eugenics is completely solid. Just because you don’t like it and call it nazi does not mean it’s a bad idea. Plus they already use it to abort a lot of downs syndrome fetuses and similar. I’m not certain that that technically falls under the category of eugenics, but it’s the same sort of idea. Downs syndrome people are simply defective, in a similar way intersex people are defective–an error of nature on both accounts.
Let me clear this up for you:
You eugenics is not a science. Its a social/government system based on a narrow value system. Its influence on science has been rightfully repudiated.
An individual couple choicing to abort a fetus that might have or does have Down Syndrome is not eugenics. They are not the same in degree or kind.
I’m not calling it Nazi. I’m saying you can’t separate eugenics from Nazism because of the intertwined history. Stop creating strawmen. We also can’t separate eugenics from American history like our unconstitutional policies compulsory sterilization.
“Error of nature” is not a scientific claim. Its a moralistic one based on an antiquated and teleological view of science and evolution.
The only thing you have exposed is you support one of the most inhumane and atrocious policies to come out of Western culture.
Bike, do you dispute that all this “intersex” stuff is any more than a birth defect? Without massive intervention these people simply cannot breed with their defective sex organs. They are a genetic dead end, therefore a mistake of nature. You know it was a nazi scientist that designed all of the US space program’s original rockets, right? Just because the Germans did it doesn’t mean it’s automatically evil. You’re just showing yourself to be simple at this point, Bike. It’s a bit sad that you can’t be more open-minded.
You are being ironic, right,? (Regarding open-mindedness). Do you think most of us advocates actually grew up understanding intersex or trasngender individuals? Nonetheless respecting them in a society that clearly believes they should be oppressed? You have an inverted understanding of the issue if you actually believe your own words.
Its also becoming clear that you either lack the ability to read other’s opinions in context or refuse to do do so as a tactic. You consistently take the Nazi comment out of context, ie eugenics. I haven’t made a single comment about anything ekse being related to Nazism so stop with the strawmen.
Per….”mistake of nature”…if you actually understood or cared about biological sciences you would understand it doesn’t make value based judgements like that. Some of the phenotypes and genotypes are results of mutations but that has an explicit biological definition different than society uses.
And you are scientifically wrong about your conclusions about intersex individuals. Many intersex individuals can reproduce. The link actually states that, but its evident you didn’t actually follow it. Intersex is a spectrum between “typical” biological males and females. The science is descriptive of those conditions but does not provide the value based judgements you constantly do.
But that is the difference between biological science and the social program of eugenics you openly support. You believe these individuals are “dead-ends” and inferior because you personally value “typical” bodies and a narrow understanding of reproduction. Science and psychiatry doesn’t make those value judgements. Science completely avoids it and psychiatry is centered on understanding the individuals experience and aiding them individually (in rare cases, like pathologies and extreme disorders they do intervene without a patient’s consent.)
So stop using psuedoscientific justifications to rationalize your individual values. Liking eugenics is about you and your inhumane and unconstitutional (ie not centered in respecting a fellow citizens liberty) worldview . Science has zero to do with that preference.
Bike, you really don’t know much about genetics or biology. What you have is your mind filled with a bunch of cuckoo leftist propaganda. Even if they have some type of chromosomal or intersex disorder, if these people are able to breed, they are either a male or a female. If they are neither of those they are simply a genetic dead end. For the ones with chromosome or intersex disorders, if they are actually fertile, the question is what sort of health problems will these abnormalities cause in the offspring. Does the word “abnormal” suit your tastes better, bike? Since you don’t like ‘defective’ or ‘mistake’ or ‘error’. Are we down to the point of nitpicking language? That is a very leftist mindset. Should I use “neutral pronouns” for you also? It’s hilarious that they want to bastardize plural pronouns to use them as “gender neutral” singular ones. I actually can’t get over how absurd that one is. Can’t they be even slightly creative and come up with something better? Too funny 😉
You are barking up the wrong tree. My field is biology.
If you want to talk science than start citing valid scientific information to back up your ideas. Until then I’ll conclude you lack both the relevant knowledge and expertise to make the claims you have. And that conclusion is further solidified by your constant desire to place value judgements on the individuals and issues at hand.
Best of luck.
It’s purely your opinion that i’m putting value judgement on anything. If you are actually knowledgeable on biology you should understand that nature itself puts a “value judgements” on these intersex defects. If they cannot breed they are simply weeded out of the gene pool. This is very basic stuff. It becomes an ethical dilemma when using massive scientific interventions to allow such creatures to breed. Nature itself has historically had its ways of cleaning up such defects, but with modern humans’ ability to manipulate these kinds of things in a lab or surgically it becomes a murky issue. I’m not gonna go into this issue any deeper bc obviously you don’t have anything to back up your views. Calling things “nazi” just bc you don’t understand them is a big cop out. Keep citing these clownish, leftist “science” publications about trans issues. It just makes it seem like you can’t tell reality from the delusional leftist fairytale world. On top of that it makes you seem simple. Nice chat, bike. cheers 😉
For a short time when I taught locally in the St. George area, we were told that if a girl or a boy claiming to be the opposite sex wanted to be referred to with the “appropriate pronouns,” I was worried because I would have refused to reject reality and common sense for a few people who had severe mental problems. Luckily, I am now retired and do not have to worry about it.
Being forced to use the inappropriate terms is nothing short of enabling a sick mind that needs help. Society has dropped a lot over the years because it has stopped setting boundaries and allowed those not in touch with reality to rule how we are supposed to think and speak.
I think there are issues associated with forcing citizens to use specific language. Government employees, like teachers, is a different story though.
And your claims “severe mental problems” is inconsistent with the actual professionals of the field. They understand that stigmatizing and your generic solutions actually cause these individuals more harm. They understand that their emotional distress is exacerbated by being to live with a body that isn’t consistent with their gender. We have a ton of scientific studies exploring that very reality.
Its really not that difficult of a subject to understand. Its a pretty basic concept of a civil society to respect the individual freedom to live their lives as they see fit. If we are expected to respect the liberty of a citizen to practice religion in private than how is that any different than a citizen using the best science available to reduce emotional distress?
its exactly how i feel, jpff. If a schizophrenic is seeing magical flying pink bunnies we don’t say “oh I see them too” and encourage them in that delusion. We try and get them mental help and meds. If someone born as a man thinks he’s actually a woman, and believes that some Dr. Frankenstein surgeon is gonna give him a vagina, well, call the psychiatrist. Bike doesn’t want to help the mentally ill, but they should be helped.
Ugh, you don’t understand modern psychiatry. Modern psychiatry differentiates between disorders (schizophrenia) and conditions (gender dismorphia). They are treated differently.
You rely on a lazy understanding of mental health, ad hominems and stigma to advance your idea. I rely on the best available science and actial psychiatry.
Junk science.. hallucinations are just that, hallucinations!
Thoughtful and helpful as always.
Not nearly as delusional as YOUR junk science!
Psychiatry is not a science. Biology? Two genders. Period.
There are people finding quack doctors willing to attach four-legged animal tails to their back ends, horns on their heads and a myriad of other body changes. Said people are still human beings not tigers, kitties, dogs, sheep, or any other critter. Same applies to gender. You look at the world as everyone is a victim of some sort and the majority should normalize mental illness or change society for less than a half of a percent of confused mentally unstable folk. They can be anything they want. You and those like you use identity politics to play into the Democrat/progressive goal to control us all through hate, and created problems. Meanwhile they pick our pockets and take as many freedoms as they possibly can.
Biology doesn’t even support the cultural definitions of binary sex, nonetheless something as diverse as gender:
We are just beginning to understand the full range of gender experience and expression in the biological sciences. But we’ve recognized the fluidity of that for a while.
I could care less about your assumptions about democrats. I’m not one and it has no bearing on the science.
Per psychiatry: its a field directly related to science. Maybe you are confusing it with traditional psychology or therapy? But even they are considered increasingly science based in defining mental health condition and treatment options. Either way your comment is tangental as the the original commentor was deferential to its expertise, hence my response.
And your claim that I believe everyone is a victim of some sort and the majority should normalize mental illness or change society for less than a half of a percent of confused mentally unstable folk” is a straw man or outright lie. And the irony is you are the one using identity politics in this case.
Biology does support Cogent Cat’s comment, b&f. Your psycho babble does not! XX XY that’s all there is.. 2 and 2 only and they are not interchangeable depending on how you feel today!
I can now confidently just call you a liar. I have supported my fact based assessment of sex not being biologically binary with evidence above. I refuted your claim. Repeating the same ascientific claims over and over again on your part doesn’t make them any less true.
You are an scientifically illiterate troll, plain and simple.
b&f, it’s not a fact based assessment, transgenderism is junk science, appeasing people’s hallucinations is cruel. If you were nor born a woman, you can never be a woman. What part of that do you not understand. Tell us how science corrects the chromosome issue? XX, XY.. not interchangeable after conception That’s a fact! You are stuck with that and if you aren’t satisfied get treatment for your delusions!
I already provided you biological evidence that sex isn’t binary and that we know there are more genotypes than XX and XY. But I’ll provide the link again:
Biological science differentiates between sex and gender. It also recognizes its not binary.
But the reality is have shown no evidence of caring about fact or science.
b&f,no you didn’t provide any biological evidence. How do you change the XX or XY in the chromosomes? Females have an XX pair of sex chromosomes, and males, an XY pair. A baby’s gender is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes a woman’s egg. Sperm carry one sex chromosome, either a Y (male) or X (female). Plain and simple unless you get the democrats involved!
Bob, you’re going back and forth with an lgbtqrst he will say anything to justify the sodom and gamorrah behaviors. It’s all in the Bible
The assumptions you make would be entertaining if they didn’t expose an underlying prejudice.
You still haven’t answered what the procedure is to change the GENDER DEFINING chromosomes. XX= female, XY= male. How does your junk science deal with that immovable fact? 2 genders = 2 sexes.. all the others are hallucinations and made up by JUNK SCIENCE and democrats.
It is interesting though. Comments is spouting off support for eugenics which is as antithetical to Christianity as it gets. Yet you focus your criticism on an individual who is standing up for oppressed minorities. That is a twisted application of Christian faith as I’ve ever seen. Not shocking though given your past statements and support of inhumane practices.
What has the world come to when an agnostic better understands the Christian bible and the teachings of Jesus than a self-proclaimed Christian? (Ironically that’s the way its been throughout most of history).
B&F, you spouting all this “transgenderism” voodoo “science” is losing you credibility by the minute…
So expose how the linked chart is wrong. How are the various examples of intersex/non-binary genotypes or phenotypes “voodoi” science?
You actually have a chance to expose your scientific knowledge. Prove the linked chart wrong.
As I’ve stated below my best guess you are actually lack the scientific literacy to understand the subject at hand. As you go on with your ill-founded claims you actually provide yourself as example of the “Dunning–Kruger effect”.
Since it’s impossible to change the chromosomes, it’s impossible to change gender or sex after conception..GAME, SET, MATCH!
Because I love Bob! I may not agree with him and nor him with I but he has never been rude to me or hateful. He always comes back with understanding and compassion comments.
And I cant say the same about you.
When your original comment lacks anything resembling compassion or empathy for the individual subjects (LGBTQi, rape victims, etc) than I respond with a similar tone. Its a pretty fundamental approach to ethics to draw a line and not tolerate the intolerable. I’ve done it with a few people here: NickDanger and his racist ethno-nationalism; John and his troll spasms; and now Comments and his psuedo-scientific support of eugenics. My response to you is explicitly related to the fundamental contradictions between your statements and claims to be Christian.
At the end of the day its about your statements and behavior as I have ni clue about “who” you truly are. But when push comes to shove I will always stand tall against the types of behavior I have highlighted. Especially when I’ve first started from a neutral, understanding place but y’all decide to double and triple down on such aweful forms of irrational prejudice.
aww. That’s nice of you to say, LBA. <3
b&f I’ve learned in life I could challenge anyone. But it is greater for me to love than challenge. That’s who I am. I have opinions. I dont expect anyone to agree with. Because right or wrong, all people need is love. We all have trauma. We all have bad things happen to us. We all need love.
You can take your science, the way you use it against people, and shove it where the sun dont shine. Your science doesnt have love. And right or wrong, love is what people need. Not facts not science, love.
And the way you attack people with science and whatever fact checking site you use, you dont have love.
My suggestion, add love to your fact checking science statements. Add humility. Add understanding of others point of views and you will get alot further and reach more people.
Leave out the “your god” verbage. Whether you believe of not, It’s your God too. If you don’t believe, don’t attack others for believing. You see, it’s about love. God is love. You don’t have love, you don’t have God in your heart.
I could go around pointing out everything wrong in this world, but then I would be just like you, a hater.
At least, fake it til you make it. You don’t believe in God. Then leave God out of your argument. Leave the word Christian out of your argument. Christian means christ like. Man, b&f, I am not Christ like. But I’m a believer. The things I do or say would be called out by a non believer, like you, because you dont believe that you need to be saved from anything. Oh Lord, I need to be saved from everything. That’s the difference between me and you. I dont need to be judged by you, my goodness, my fear is to be judged by the one true living God.
You’re smart, but you rely on science. Science doesnt have room for God.
I’ve come a long way, shoot, I wonder how I am not dead from the things I’ve done. All I know is I’m here and God has me here for a reason. I dont want to change you but I do ask you bring love, compassion and understanding to people who have different views than you. And not just words like, your God, agnostic knows more than you blah blah blah.
You fail to recognize when you bring up your god in a public setting its fair game to use that subject to counter your arguments. You brought up god in this thread and so Christian dogma became a subject we can use to highlight your blatant and persistent hypocrisy. Its more than ironic and irrational for a devout Christian to constantly use this forum to prosthelytize but demand others “leave God out of your argument”.
And you have shown no humility or compassion for rape victims or immigrants. You have done the opposite. You behave inconsistent to your own faith’s teaching with no sense of regret or care to change when that is highlighted. And now you are providing cover for someone who supports eugenics.
You fail to understand, at least according to your statements here, that Christianity is not an excuse or copout. But you use it as such. The basic and fundamental tenets of Christianity expect you to do better when it comes to the subjects highlighted. At a minimum that means being accountable to the inhumane behavior you have condoned or done yourself. Doubling and tripling down on the same behavior is antithetical to that.
Make claims about your faith in the supernatural all you want. I’ll choose science and its processes which can’t test or deny your claims. And I don’t need to. I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat myself….when you claim allegiance to a set of teachings or beliefs (religion) than I can expect you to at least behave consistent with those claims in a public setting. I’ll continue to challenge you on that as long as you continue to make statements inconsistent with Christianity. But you’ll notice I don’t challenge you much about science because you have been honest about not valuing it. I challenge Comments with science as he claims to value it and we mostly leave religion by the wayside. See the theme?
If you don’t like being challenged then stop engaging in these dialogues and posting publicly. Free speech was never about comfort or complacency.
b&f you are from rational. And you have zero discernment.
Two problems Howard, first you just stole this story from Fox News from a story they did in 2017. You are using a story to drum up support for your far right beliefs. You sprinkle some abortion claims and then add the words Antifa and Hilary Clinton and you got your followers drinking the kool-aid. Secondly the “newspeak” you are talking about is a law to protect seniors in long term care facilities. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219
It prevents these places from discriminating against seniors who are lgbtq. It also prevents these places from discriminating against someone based on their HIV status. Maybe you should read past the headlines of the news you intake to see the real stories. If you don’t research what is put out in the media (opinion articles included) then yes we will have a 1984 situation. You don’t have to agree with my liberal and atheist views, but you have to use that squishy thing between your ears to seek the truth and not follow blindly.
Thank you for researching his claims. I normally do but forgot this time. Howard can play pretty loose with the facts of a situation.
I do think its fair to discuss the conplexities and consequences of such laws in general bu the nuances matter. I think healthcare professionals should have different standards than an average joe. Defining those is where it gets difficult and messy.
There are two approaches to this controversy that I like. The first comes from Ben Shapiro who notes that your decision to be considered a transgender is not cause for me to deny science and go along with your decision. So I will acknowledge science and use the appropriate pronouns. In other words, Bruce Jenner will always be “he”. The second comes from a college student who decided he should be referred to by his chosen pronoun, “Your Majesty”.
I feel sorry for those who are conflicted in their own bodies… which they often compound with regret after they go under the knife. However, please don’t be offended if someone uses the wrong pronoun. The earth has evolved and revolved around a patriarchy based, binary system. Through time, round people haven’t fit well in the square holes of society. It’s been a lot tougher for them in the past.
Except the hobbit is wrong and most scientist back the idea of gender and sexuality as both a social concept and a spectrum. He just says that because reading peer reviewed journals is more work then he is willing to put into something.
The beginning quote contradicts the rest of the paper. Which is really the “narrow range of thought”; clinging to the scientifically obsolete precedent that there are only two genders, or the modern view which expands upon the old theory that is now widely accepted by leading experts in multiple fields? (the gender spectrum doesn’t eliminate the original 2 genders)
I am not transgender but I don’t think anyone should be discriminated against, even if they were mentally ill, which they aren’t. These laws that are being passed are for protecting citizens from intolerance, and ultimately being able to live how they want to live
If you don’t want people telling you how to live your life, stop telling people to how to live theirs.
Females have an XX pair of sex chromosomes, and males, an XY pair. A baby’s gender is determined by the sperm cell that fertilizes a woman’s egg. Sperm carry one sex chromosome, either a Y (male) or X (female). That’s your choices. All others are fantasy!
Your mixing up gender and sex bucko.
Happy Commentor just repeats the same claims over and over again no matter the counter evidence provided (linked twice). Its a sad example of the state of our nation’s scientific literacy. It appears many people haven’t learned anything beyond rudimentary biology.
And Howard’s claims aren’t much better. This is the second article in which he’s made claims based on a simplistic understanding of biology. We have millions of individuals across the world who don’t have either XX or XY chromosomes and who have non-binary sexual characteristics.
But I’m sure Happy Commentor will just repeat the same thing over and over again.
Facts are FACTS b&f.. you can’t change your gender. period…Your argument can’t even get past the first question.. What do you do about the chromosomes? Assigned at conception and they will be the SAME when you die. XY or XX. It really is that simple… I thing you need a larger deodorant!
(A) you don’t even know the difference between gender and sex given your comments
(B) people have always been fluid with gender. You don’t need to change anything biologically to do so. We see it everyday and throughout history.
(C) Changing sex is clearly more complex. Sex “reassignment” normally requires a combination of surgery, hormones, etc. Does it change your chromosomes? No. But we’ve never defined legal sex by chromosomes. A doctor instead looks for “typical” traits and designates sex. Until the last few years in the US, if a doctor had an intersex newborn they could choose which sex to define it as (without
parental consent)) and remove the opposite sexual features. Its why so many individuals don’t disvover they are intersex until later in life.
This has been known and studied for ages. I’ve listed all of the non-binary genetic and phenotypic variants that are accepted science. Your conclusions don’t undermine their validity in any fashion. Just like being a flat earther doesn’t make the world less spherical.
For those interested in learning about genetic evidence that sex and gender are a spectrum see the attached chart (from previous link). Its probably the best graphic on the subject. 1% of humans may not sound like many individuals until you calculate that means there are approximately 60 million non-binary humans on the planet (old 6 billion population estimate).
More lbtgqrdhb propaganda… nothing more.. B&f falls for propaganda all the time
It really is. These type of publications have been taken over by ultra-leftist lunatic fringes. Junk science.
So any science you disagree with is propaganda. Any you agree with is real science. Whats your take on skull shapes?
This has been the goal of the anti-science movement in the US all along. Don’t like the potential implications scientific findings have on your ideology? Just claim its fake or gish gosh them to death.
We were a country that lauded science and reaped the many benefits, from medical innovations (longer, healthier lives) to industry and exploration. But the merchants of doubt have spent millions and decades undermining scientific literacy in this country for political gain.
How is creating a chart of all of the well-documented genotypic and phenotypic manifestations “junk science”? In a rational, logical dialogue your actually supposed to present proof of such s claim. You haven’t.
My guess is you actually lack the scientific literacy to even understand the basic tenets of what they are presenting there. It would actually be fine if you just admitted that. But claiming well-established biological facts are “junk science” is ridiculous and downright absurd.
*Non-binary genotypes and phenotypes
That is one question that leaves us something to ponder..B&F Somebody wrote it down but it’s just ,as comment put it “VOODOO SCIENCE”. It ranks right up there with the Saturday morning magic vitamin commercials on the radio, you really have to be a fool to buy that crap!
You are confusing social darwinism, ie the social bastardization of Darwin’s evolutionary theories, with actual evolutionary processes. They are not the same. And that’s not “clownish, leftist “science” publications” but peer-reviewed emperical science. I have no idea what psuedo-science you are pulling from but evolution and biology do not support your claims about value judgements. Evolution has no direction, values or end game. They just are. Ironically the teleological processes you are describing are derived from monotheistic religions (often called natural theology), which you seem to abhore.
A primer (with citations) on Natural Selection and its lack of purpose/values/design:
Science and biology haven’t accepted purpose/design or values like you describe for ages. The scientific method requires testable/falsifiability and values don’t meet that criteria. You should be familiar with these terms if you have studied science since at a college level since the mid-20th century onward. If not, there are countless sources discussing the defining characteristics and limitations. But here is one detailed exploration:
There is nothing simple about defining science as it has been for decades. But its the best way to actually test hypotheses in a meaningful way that can be replicated. When you dig deep there ate “values” underlying science but they are in the philosophies and definitions (like objectivity) and not in the outcomes.
I’m not sure when you learned about science or who from. But at some point you did infuse it with your own personal values. That’s not an opinion but a conclusion from logical deduction. If science isn’t value based (eg evolution weeds out such and such) than the values you describe are descecedent of a person after the findings. Pretty basic.
But your abhorant claims aren’t unusual. The field has had it’s share of charlatans who tried to imbue research with social values that the empirical scientific process doesn’t bare. In the recent past James Watson used his status to push unfounded claims of racial inferiority. Even the field you admire was founded on the work of human geneticist Francis Galton who used his work to justify colonialism. Luckily the real science they did wasn’t polluted by such horrific BS.
Bike, thanks, but you’re not telling me anything I don’t know. I know that evolution is far from being fully understood by science. From my understanding they have never been able to demonstrate a “lower” life form “evolving” into a “higher” life form, but we won’t get into all that. I also know that the “science” of gender or gender/queer/trans studies or whatever they’re calling it these days is so intertwined with political agendas that it’s all pretty well useless. Plus, you’re putting a complete value judgement with your “eugenics is bad because the nazis did it”. With respect bike, that makes you hypocritical since you’re accusing me of value judgments. And there’s a lot of “politically incorrect” parts of science that hard leftist ideology has made into a major taboo, and so it’s taboo to study it. You believe eugenics is just this abhorrent terrible thing, and I believe trans people getting their genitals cut is every bit as bad. I’m all over the place w/ this now, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on w/e it is we’re discussing here, unless you can bring something new or interesting to the discussion. 😉
Ugh, not a hypocrite for highlighting eugenics is inhumane. Thats clearly my personal judgement. Never said otherwise. Thats a failed argument on your side; I’ve never hidden my personal judgements. I use sound science to justify my arguments and highlight the misinformation and psuedo-science in other comments.
Distinguishing science from values is consistent with that approach and a critical step in understanding science. That was and remains the disagreement. Do you recognize all of the misrepresentations and strawmen you make in your comments? And I’ll clarify again since you either are intentionally/maliciously misrepresenting my comments or refuse to read other’s comments in context: You cannot separate eugenics from its atrocious history, both American and Nazi. But the underlying reason its inhumane and condemned is because it directly conflicts with personal agency and liberty and it bastardizes science (ie psuedo-science) for racist and sexist social programs.
There are no “lower” and “higher” life forms nor does evolution have such a direction. You haven’t presented ideas in a fashion that actually validates that you understand science or evolution. You constantly makes psuedoscientific claims that are inconsistent with science.
You used several classic cop outs when people simply refuse to admit they don’t understand science or have made fallacious claims. First, its clearly must be partisan and is therefore”useless”; its a fallacious argument as you haven’t provided any evidence to support your broad political claim nor have you actually shown anything incorrect in the science. Its an approach that puts ideology ahead of objective, empirical and/or rational dialog.
I’ll continue call out your BS use of pseudscience to justify your personal values. Especially when they are used to support social experiments that resulted in some of histories worst events: forced sterilization, slavery and colonialism, mass murder and genecide, etc. I have no problem naming the ideas you support for what they truly are and continuing to highlight the barbarism behind them. Don’t expect to find comfort in this forum if those are the ideas you hope to share.
We have “atheist” Bob vs. agnostic b&f highlights on channel 7 news at 11pm.
I’m rooting for “atheist” Bob
Any side bets?
I’ve actually lost track about what we’re even arguing about here. When we debate sex and gender bike always starts talking about intersex abnormalities… so I don’t even know
It does get nauseating.
Y’all do like spin.
I bring up intersex when individuals fallaciously claim sex and gender is strictly binary. Part of dialoug is point and counterpoint. If someone makes wrong claims or outright lies than it is part of rational/logical debate to expose evidence that proves them wrong.
And I’ll keep doing it when folks present such ideas here.
A Male has a penis. A Female has a vagina. (I didn’t make up those words, someone else did. But that’s the name we use)
A Male has sperm
A female gas eggs.
Sperm fertilizes the egg.
An egg and an egg or a sperm and a sperm cannot fertilize eachother.
So, you can control the population as long as the person does not fertilize before going same sex. After you have a kid, you have already failed at your choice of being gay or lesbian. You’re bisexual at that point.
Editor: has not gas*
If you want to go from male to female or Visa versa, just do it before you bring children Into the world. Because, again, if you have kids, you have already failed at your choice. Remember, eggs and sperm.
That’s simply an odd comment. Homosexuality is not the same issue as transgender. One is about gender in relation to physical sex while the other is about sexual preference and attraction. Just like their “cis” gendered bretheren, “trans”gender individuals can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc, etc.
Ironically, your own definitions expose the truth that sex isn’t binary. We have centuries of examples regarding individuals society calls “women” and “men” (or derogatory insults) that don’t fit within your definitions. We have individuals born without “typical” chromosomes, physical structures or don’t eventually mature with “typical” male or female sexual features.
Reality is complex that way.
I suppose my words are too simple for you.
Did you like my use of the word choice?
Correction: your summary is too simple, and an incorrect, assessment of biological reality.
I cant tell if you are disagreeing with the sperm and egg fertilization or boys have penises, girls have vaginas.
Either way, have a good day!