Transgender activists often use people with intersex conditions as human shields against women who insist on retaining words for female and male people.
A very small number of people have medical conditions called disorders of sexual development (DSDs), and the vast majority of that small number are still classifiable as female or male. Yet somehow, the existence of a tiny fraction of one percent of people who might be difficult to classify means that we should all pretend that human sexual reproduction is extremely mysterious and complicated, and that because human sexual reproduction is extremely mysterious and complicated, men who do not have intersex conditions should be able to identify as women, because their brains/minds/souls - none of which is a reproductive organ - is supposedly of the opposite sex.
This is incredibly insulting to people who live with actual DSDs, and intersex advocates have long pointed out that this practice exacerbates the widespread public ignorance of their medical conditions, but transgender activists ignore these objections, because they are not concerned with intersex rights, only with exploiting yet another group of marginalized people in their war on women.
This is incredibly insulting to people who live with actual DSDs, and intersex advocates have long pointed out that this practice exacerbates the widespread public ignorance of their medical conditions, but transgender activists ignore these objections, because they are not concerned with intersex rights, only with exploiting yet another group of marginalized people in their war on women.
What's astounding is how many people on the Left go along with this, who think they sound enlightened rather than ridiculous when they say "sex is a spectrum." A shocking number of Leftists seem unable to distinguish the simple recognition that sex in humans is indeed binary (male/female) from the practice of sexism (assigning dominance to maleness and subordination to femaleness.)
So, to help them out, a thought exercise. Here's an imaginary group of 1000 people, all aged between 20 and 40:
30 have an intersex condition (let's assume none are fertile)
485 are male: 460 fertile, 20 infertile, 5 transsexual (let's assume post-op)
485 are female: 454 fertile, 30 infertile, 1 transsexual (let's assume post-op)
91% of the above people are capable of procreation. We could go into the effects of perceived reproductive potential on socialization, and the effects of socialization on both personality and opportunity, but there's an easy way to simplify this.
Every single one of those 1000 people above came into existence through heterosexual reproduction. The sperm from a male person successfully fertilized the ovum of a female person. A female person then grew a fetus inside her female body, and eventually birthed a baby, from her female body. THIS IS THE CASE FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 1000 PEOPLE.
Let's say for this particular group of human offspring, all were single births not involving surrogacy, with no sibling overlap. Then let's talk about those moms and dads: 1000 (fertile) human females, and 1000 (fertile) human males.
Those human females were correctly identified as ova-producers at birth. Was it right for them to be socialized to view themselves as weak, irrational, submissive? Those human males were correctly identified as sperm-producers at birth. Was it right for them to be socialized to view themselves as entitled to dominate and exploit?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE CALL GENDER.
AND THAT IS WHAT FEMINISTS FIGHT AGAINST.
Not the simple, obvious, *elementary* observation that sex is binary. We fight against the idea that our reproductive potential determines our personality and thus should determine our social role and status. Being female is not shameful. Being female simply means we have the ability, should we so choose and should our health allow, to create human life. It is only through gendered socialization that women come to be viewed/view ourselves as dirty, dependent sub-humans. Being male is likewise not determinative; it is only through gendered socialization that men are excused for the violent, exploitative behavior that props up male supremacy.
Pointing out that socialization based on reproductive potential should not apply to a certain percentage of people (let's say 10%) for whom perceived reproductive potential does not match actual reproductive potential - DOES NOTHING FOR THE 90% LEFTOVER.
So, to help them out, a thought exercise. Here's an imaginary group of 1000 people, all aged between 20 and 40:
30 have an intersex condition (let's assume none are fertile)
485 are male: 460 fertile, 20 infertile, 5 transsexual (let's assume post-op)
485 are female: 454 fertile, 30 infertile, 1 transsexual (let's assume post-op)
91% of the above people are capable of procreation. We could go into the effects of perceived reproductive potential on socialization, and the effects of socialization on both personality and opportunity, but there's an easy way to simplify this.
Every single one of those 1000 people above came into existence through heterosexual reproduction. The sperm from a male person successfully fertilized the ovum of a female person. A female person then grew a fetus inside her female body, and eventually birthed a baby, from her female body. THIS IS THE CASE FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 1000 PEOPLE.
Let's say for this particular group of human offspring, all were single births not involving surrogacy, with no sibling overlap. Then let's talk about those moms and dads: 1000 (fertile) human females, and 1000 (fertile) human males.
Those human females were correctly identified as ova-producers at birth. Was it right for them to be socialized to view themselves as weak, irrational, submissive? Those human males were correctly identified as sperm-producers at birth. Was it right for them to be socialized to view themselves as entitled to dominate and exploit?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE CALL GENDER.
AND THAT IS WHAT FEMINISTS FIGHT AGAINST.
Not the simple, obvious, *elementary* observation that sex is binary. We fight against the idea that our reproductive potential determines our personality and thus should determine our social role and status. Being female is not shameful. Being female simply means we have the ability, should we so choose and should our health allow, to create human life. It is only through gendered socialization that women come to be viewed/view ourselves as dirty, dependent sub-humans. Being male is likewise not determinative; it is only through gendered socialization that men are excused for the violent, exploitative behavior that props up male supremacy.
Pointing out that socialization based on reproductive potential should not apply to a certain percentage of people (let's say 10%) for whom perceived reproductive potential does not match actual reproductive potential - DOES NOTHING FOR THE 90% LEFTOVER.
Stop trying to render sex unnameable. Fight sexism instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.