Trump Administration Seeks A Return To Sanity With Respect To Sex, "Gender," and "Transgenderism"
This should send progressives into hysterics...but it looks like the Trump admin is simply returning to factual, scientific policies on this stuff.
But check out the NYT's headline:
First, the NYT--like the rest of the "MSM"--doesn't even pretend to be objective about this anymore. They bought a bizarre, extremist theory of this stuff, and that's that. They speak as if it were the most ordinary thing in the world, free from any doubts.
Second: the nonsense was defined into existence. Nothing discussed in the article involves "defining it out of existence." It merely returns to a non-ideological view of the matter, focusing on the objective characteristics that the government has always recognized and must recognize. Specifically: sex. Nobody's even saying that outlandish nonsense like "gender identity" isn't real. The suggestion, apparently, is just that the government need not have any interest in such (pseudo-)concepts. Oh and: they shouldn't be confused with the stuff the government does need to know about you--i.e. your sex. This nonsense was defined into existence by mere words; it's a clash with the facts and real, practical matters of government that threaten it.
Third, don't neglect the politically correct but ungrammatical use of 'transgender' instead of the grammatically correct 'transgenderism.' The headline is talking about the state or condition of being transgendered (though they also want us to say 'transgender' there). This is obviously the kind of case in which we use suffixes like '-ism'...but the official PC line on that is that people who consider themselves transgendered think it sounds too medical--as if [cough] it were a disorder. So they demand that--as with pronouns--we alter our vocabulary and modify English grammar in order to cater to their whims.
It's utter madness that things have come to this point. This may be yet another case in which Trump, loathsome as he may be as a person, is going to implement saner policy than Obama, admirable though he was as a person.
But check out the NYT's headline:
"Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out Of Existence"If you want a snapshot of transgender insanity, you could hardly do better.
First, the NYT--like the rest of the "MSM"--doesn't even pretend to be objective about this anymore. They bought a bizarre, extremist theory of this stuff, and that's that. They speak as if it were the most ordinary thing in the world, free from any doubts.
Second: the nonsense was defined into existence. Nothing discussed in the article involves "defining it out of existence." It merely returns to a non-ideological view of the matter, focusing on the objective characteristics that the government has always recognized and must recognize. Specifically: sex. Nobody's even saying that outlandish nonsense like "gender identity" isn't real. The suggestion, apparently, is just that the government need not have any interest in such (pseudo-)concepts. Oh and: they shouldn't be confused with the stuff the government does need to know about you--i.e. your sex. This nonsense was defined into existence by mere words; it's a clash with the facts and real, practical matters of government that threaten it.
Third, don't neglect the politically correct but ungrammatical use of 'transgender' instead of the grammatically correct 'transgenderism.' The headline is talking about the state or condition of being transgendered (though they also want us to say 'transgender' there). This is obviously the kind of case in which we use suffixes like '-ism'...but the official PC line on that is that people who consider themselves transgendered think it sounds too medical--as if [cough] it were a disorder. So they demand that--as with pronouns--we alter our vocabulary and modify English grammar in order to cater to their whims.
It's utter madness that things have come to this point. This may be yet another case in which Trump, loathsome as he may be as a person, is going to implement saner policy than Obama, admirable though he was as a person.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:47 AM
4 Comments:
Here are the actual Title IX statutes. Do a ctrl-f for gender (no results), a ctrl-f for sex (16 results). Part of the core pseudo-theory of transgenderism is sex and gender are not identical, but that means you simply cannot use Title IX to then apply to transgenderism. It's not in the damn law. Even worse, they frequently refer to "both sexes". Ermagerd what about nonbinary otherkin??
Of course that doesn't matter if the law is whatever the wokest possible deformation of it can be, but if you're a good faith actor who happens to buy Leftist claims around gender, you have to admit there's not actually a basis here.
Though, as I'm always squawking about: 'gender' is actually multiply ambiguous. It can mean:
(i) sex
(ii) masculinity/femininity
(iii) whatever the PC left needs it to mean to get the conclusion it wants.
I personally think that sex / gender(ii) distinction is a valuable one.
Sadly, this is really right, though I'd never thought of it this way:
"..the law is whatever the wokest possible deformation of it can be..."
Gender is basically a neologism, so I don't think we should be surprised that it's ambiguous. But sex isn't, and the people with the most expansive usage of gender deliberately want to distinguish them (until they don't. Which is really inconvenient when the law explicitly applies to sex.
If the Left wants to equalize all gender expressions fine, but actually face the voters and win democratic legitimacy for it. There are definitely regions in the US that will fall head over heels for that sort of law. But don't apply this obvious legal sophistry and expect it to survive.
100% with you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home