link
The point was that Parliament is too powerful, of course, with making a woman a man / making a man a woman being obvious impossibilities.
Of course there's no real need to formulate arguments against trans pseudoscience, since, per Hitchins' Razor, what has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence--and no reasons of any non-zero degree of strength have ever been given in support of the view. But, just because it's gratifying to kick the shit out of Lysenkoist pseudoscience:
The pro-trans left has never seriously tried to say where transgenderism came from. There certainly was no new empirical discovery that suddenly, scientifically revealed that some men are women etc.--though they sometimes try to suggest that by (falsely) claiming that some men have "female brains." Of course that's false--though, biology being filled with fuzzy lines, I'll bet that male and female brains lie on a continuum, with some brains being hard to classify. I wrote fairly extensively on this back when transgenderism was fresh, rather than stale. What might be somewhat interesting--though no more than that--would be a paradigmatically female brain in a paradigmatically male body--before hormone treatments or any such thing. Even that--though there are no such cases I've ever heard of--wouldn't really help their cause...since, even granting everything they want...that would be a male with a female or female-like brain. It would not make the person female. Furthermore, even stating this view undermines another, completely different version of transgenderism: that being a man or a woman has nothing at all to do with biology. That version of the view doesn't care about brains--or any other feature of biology.
Certainly there were no discoveries in, say, the Harvard Women's and Gender Studies department... They don't make empirical discoveries in such places. They don't have, say, gender accelerators that smash genders together at half the speed of light, smashing them into genderons and whatnot... like Hey, we just discovered that masculinity is composed of 10 types of gender subparticles...
No.
Such departments don't make empirical discoveries.
We know there are no even vaguely plausible arguments for any of the many different views that get smooshed together in transgenderism...so that's out.
Leftists sometimes suggest that transgenders have always been around and everyone has always known this--known, e.g., that man and woman are "genders" rather than species/sex/maturity kinds. This is probably my favorite origin story for transgenderism: it's always been around, and everyone always knew it. This is basically another massive leftist conspiracy theory, on the order of "the patriarchy"...but even bigger... This is the most delusional origin story...because it requires convincing the entire population, who never even heard of such a thing until 2014...that they always knew it... And that their parents knew it...and their grandparents knew it...and their great-great-grandparents knew it...all the way back...forever and ever.... But no books mention it, no dictionaries are consistent with it...nothing...
And this is where the de Lolm quote becomes relevant: if everyone always knew it, then no one would use such a thing as an example of an impossibility. If everybody always knew that men can become women and women men, de Lolm certainly wouldn't have used to as a paradigmatic impossibility... The only reason that history isn't packed to the gills with people denying that men can become women is because it's so goddamned obvious. Unless you want to describe an absolute impossibility, you wouldn't even mention such a thing...
So much for the laughably stupid "we've always known" version of the view...
But we've already put more serious thought into this than all the Women's Studies departments in all the universities in the whole USA...when we really ought to just stick to Hitchens' Razor...
