The War on Sex - Transgenderists Attack Feminists
December 23, 2019
- JK Rowling tweets in support of a feminist who was fired for a gender critical belief
- Gender chauvinism is out to destroy sex, the human body and the nature of reality itself
- Question of the Day: when is it discrimination to require men to dress like men?
Ms. Forstater was discriminated against for her belief. England’s Employment Tribunal judged against her, stating that her “approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Ms. Forstater is gender critical. This means she’s pushing back against both the ideology of transgenderism, and the tyranical enforcement of that ideology.
At core it’s an asexual, utopian movement with cultic tendencies informed by radical leftism.
David Solway calls it “transrealism”, writing:
transpeople have become the “intentional community” du jour. The question that poses itself is: why? How has such an absurd satyricon come to pass in an advanced culture, in an information-rich and presumably enlightened age? How is such utter buffoonery even remotely possible?
Like feminism itself and the cultural drift toward identity politics, transgenderism is a child of the left. The answer to the question seems to lie in the socialist belief in limitless human perfectibility, in the political and technological capacity to change human nature in the quest to establish a utopian society, or, in the words of Joshua Muravchik in his takedown of socialist ideology, Heaven on Earth, to make “things that had been taken as fanciful suddenly seem possible,” which he associates with the secular program of the French Revolution.
Transgender activists want to separate sex from gender, then kill off sex.
There’s an infinitesimal number of people born intersex, for whom it’s unclear by looking at them what their sex is. Those patients are examined and often assigned a sex. For the rest of us, it’s obvious. We are born either male or female.
Male and female refers to biological sex. Butler decoupled sex from gender. Gender is free from those pesky genitalia. It is one’s expression, or one’s sense of who he really is.
Gender can be determined by society’s expectation that biological men behave like men. Or, it can be liberated and allowed to express itself independently, regardless of what biology dictates, or society proscribes.
The allure of separating gender from sex is undeniable. It promises freedom, humanity, individuality. It’s the promise of disembodiment. What more mystical and profound experience is there, than to leave ones own body? More practically, when Simone de Beauvoir said “one is not born a woman one becomes a woman,” she sought to unburden women from the shackles of sexism.
But what happens when the body gets in the way?
The war on reality
What is it about sexual difference that the idea of any necessary “alignment” between our “identities” and our bodies is now a “stereotype”? It is the very thing transparent in the root of the word that “gender” now occupies: generation. To be sexual—a boy or a girl, a man or a woman—is to have been born of a mother and father, and then to be capable of generation together with the opposite sex. It is clear enough how this essential ingredient of sexual difference entails all kinds of indebtedness, entanglements, and claims, all prior to our choosing. To be born is not only to be limited to this time, place, and circumstance. Even more radically, it is to owe one’s very existence to others. It is to be an heir.
The transgenderists want to destroy that indebtedness and seek absolute freedom from the flesh. In their fight, they will take no prisoners.
Sometimes the assault is literal: sex change operations attack the body by chopping off breasts and cutting gashes into men that must be tended like open wounds for the rest of the patient’s life. Or the endocrine system comes under assault, when even young children’s bodies are pumped full of hormones.
At other times, they attack those who would not acquiesce to their ideology:
Freya Holmér disagrees with JK Rowling and Forstater, and makes some bizarre arguments that in no way justify the name-calling.
Transphobe? No. Forstater is gender critical but she’s an absolute proponent of human rights for everybody. Holmér doesn’t care. Holmér equates disagreement with bigotry.
Holmér also supports preemptively removing people from a workplace:
having [Maya] at a workplace with people who are trans directly opens up a strong risk of discrimination, which, happened.
It didn’t happen.
Even if it did, the core of her argument doesn’t rely on Forstater having committed any offense. Holmér is saying that discrimination doesn’t need to have happened. Someone’s belief system can predict that they will commit certain crimes. Muslims or Christians or Atheists could be fired, to prevent discrimination.
In other words, let’s commit actual discrimination to prevent imaginable discrimination.
In the US, the Harris Funeral Home (see McCarthy’s essay) did get accused of discrimination, for firing a man who wanted to dress as a woman because he thought he was a woman. Is he protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Was it discrimination or just an enforcement of the male dress code, in accordance with the physical reality of being a man?
Must everybody play along with an altered version of reality, in order not to discriminate against a transgendered person?
Question of the day:
Question of the Day: is it discrimination to require men to dress like men?
Answer in the comment section below:
Posted by Will Sherman