The Left must control its hard/progressive cohort

[Belle]

As my late father always used to say, "everything is always all about WHO gets WHAT".

The progressive Left has grown out out of control and society is lapsing into decadence and moral decay at a rate of knots. Those on the centre left have to do something about this, if they want a brand to survive which has any integrity. The institutions are full of this garbage and now it's affecting the polity and it's a huge movement, exponentially larger than the so-called 'far right'. Dave Rubin, Bret Weinstein and others - formerly left liberals, one a gay married man - have abandoned the left because of their extreme views. Alan Dershowitz is now embarrassed about belonging in this cohort. Others of influence are following in droves.

With the obsession over Trump (clue 1; he's done and clue 2: this stuff is why you got Trump) the Left doesn't want to see what's going on in front of all our eyes. Social engineers belong in the former USSR, not the modern western world. It's a form of eugenics, which accompanies their very own cancel culture. It's all so very familiar to those like my doctor who lived under Communism in Poland until he was 45. It's a life devoid of religious conviction, as are the following examples of the loony Left and its social engineering panjandrums. I will push back against this garbage, so that there's something of our values and traditions left for my children and grandchildren.

Huge numbers of us agree with the man conducting this interview. This whole thing is worthy of Monty Python, as is the following article, but it's become far more serious than that. (And, of course, for it to gain traction humour must be outlawed - as it's the only method of admitting sunlight and disinfectant.) What a pity the government doesn't spend some time saving the Met instead of this rubbish.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/po ... video.html
And there's this, just the tiny tip of an iceberg.

Women, we’re in the fight of our lives to save our identity
JANET ALBRECHTSEN
If we dare to try to discuss or challenge the diktats of the trans movement, we should expect the same vitriol, abuse and public shaming heaped on JK Rowling last year.
For thousands of years, people have discussed, debated, and disagreed with each other when considering what it means to be human. From the ancient Greeks to the 21st century, western civilisation’s exploration of human identity has not been a straight line, nor a road without whopping big bumps. Those more taken with the ecstasy of thought have helped steer human progress.

From our vantage point, the overall direction is distinctly ­positive: we strive for the inherent dignity of the individual to live free from ideological shackles imposed on them by others, to be free to prosper spiritually, emotionally, physically and ­materially. The route — one of ­debate, discussion and disagreement — has been the key to moving closer to genuine inclusivity, diver­sity and tolerance.

Something very different has taken hold within a few short years when it comes to thinking about what it means to be a woman. We have stopped thinking. The trans movement has decreed that ­biology is no determinant of womanhood. Many within this ­social justice movement assert that there is no room for debate, and that if we dare to try to discuss it, or challenge their diktats, we should expect the same vitriol, abuse and public shaming heaped on JK Rowling last year.

What is unfolding is the antithesis of inclusivity and tolerance. Worse, it marks a disturbing detour from progress. Surely, our ­desire to support trans men and women need not be done by eliminating the reality of women’s biological identities? Yet only a handful of brave women spoke out this week in the British parliament about a law dealing with paid ­maternity leave that has expunged a pregnant woman from the law, choosing instead to refer to “a person who is pregnant”. Proving herself once again to be a gleaming light of logic, Baroness Claire Fox, an independent, said: “These new language codes and norms are mandating us to adopt doublespeak. Why do I need to describe myself as a ‘cis woman’? I am a woman; that is it — enough. I am not a uterus holder, nor a person with a vagina nor a chestfeeder. These are linguistic abominations, but they are not harmless. Ultimately, these body part descriptions demean women and are a linguistic assault on the notion that biological sex exists at all.’’

There is an unmistakeable push across institutions to erase women and their biological reality. Earlier this month, the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust laid down in its internal guidelines that there are “birthing parents” rather than “mothers” and “chest-feeding” in place of “breast-feeding”.

In Australia, too, the biological female is being quietly erased, though not yet by our parliaments. The Gender Institute at the Australian National University in Canberra, for example, published a handbook last year in which the words “mother” and “father” are replaced with “gestational” and “non-gestational” parent. “Breastfeeding” becomes “chest-feeding”, and “mother’s milk” becomes “human milk”.

For centuries, feminists fought for women to be recognised in all our biological glory. Fox and a few others, women such as Germaine Greer and Rowling, are continuing that battle. But where are the younger feminists? So vocal on other important matters, why are they so silent about an issue that goes to the core of womanhood and feminism?

If men advocated for the erasure of female biology from laws, policies and other official forms of language to suit them, most women would be screaming to high heaven about the misogyny of that project. But when a small group of trans activists call for the elimination of ­female biology from language, laws and sport, there is cowering silence.

Do we understand what is at stake? The move to eliminate the biological woman from the English language is worse than book burning. It is more damaging than toppling statues, censoring art, cleansing words from The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn and removing dialogue from our TV screens’ clips of Fawlty Towers.

It is altogether different from adding “Ms” to the list of titles for women or swapping “chairman” with “chairperson”. Language has always adapted to new times. We have moved on from the language of Beowulf and Chaucer.

Expunging female biology from our language is the state-sanctioned humiliation of women. When carried over into laws, it makes it harder for women to be safe in public toilets and prisons, and impossible for women to compete fairly in sport.

We women talk among ourselves about being mentally “undressed” by men. Now we face something worse being done, not to a single woman, but en masse: all biological females, tiny tots included, are being told by parliaments and bureaucracies that our female biology is to be stripped away from us, treated as a matter of inconsequence in the eyes of ­bureaucracies and the law. Stamping out our intrinsic biological identity is an abomination akin to stripping the sexual identity from gays or the religious identity from Christians or Muslims or Sikhs.

While it is clear the trans movement is far more doctrinaire in its quest for rights than other ­social justice movements over the past few hundred years, what is less clear is why we’re so afraid to push back against illogical, unreasonable and destructive demands?

Perhaps some people imagine that attempts to excise mothers and women from our language is a temporary detour, that we will ultimately right ourselves to a more enlightened path. If so, then the past few years will be just another challenge we surmounted in the long, complicated, imperfect yet dazzling story of western civilisation. We would be able to look back and wonder what on earth got into us that we allowed this ­demented, illogical fad to take hold, even for a short time.

But what if it is not a fleeting moment of nonsense? What if the project to decouple women from their biology is more long-term? When we agree to demands to ­dehumanise half the population by stripping away their biology, we dehumanise the whole of society.

It will make it easier to strip other groups from the essence of their beings. Isn’t that the lesson of slavery, of apartheid, and of ­ongoing racism?

Given that we cannot know now whether this is a passing fad or a permanent change to society, we had better do all that we can to make sure it is the former. That means fighting for the spirit of ­enquiry, of debate, and, inevitably, disagreeing with each other.

In her thought-provoking 3600-word essay posted online last June, Rowling raises many of the issues that need to be explored and debated, not just about the ­distortion of language, but about other issues at the centre of the trans movement. For example, the 4400 per cent increase in girls being referred to transitioning treatment in Britain, with autistic girls over-represented in these ­astonishing numbers. Rowling wrote about her experiences as a girl who did not “feel pink”, and how she worked out that “it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are”. For being curious and trying to keep inquiry open by defending a woman’s right, need, and desire to be recognised as a biological being, Rowling is the target of bile and bigotry.

If we, as women, cannot defend our biological being, what will become of women? If we, as adults, cannot talk openly about the ­explosion of gender dysphoria among children, how can we know we are doing the right thing by children? We at risk of conducting a giant social experiment without enough careful analysis of what is happening.

The darkest side to the project to kill off a woman’s biological self is not what has happened to date. The most dangerous part put about by many within the trans movement is that there is no space for women to defend their biology, and no room for debate when it comes to gender dysphoria.

It signals a form of ideological tyranny that, in light of recent history, those living in the 21st century ought to be well equipped to recognise and resist.

[david johnson]

YES

[maestrob]

My goodness, Belle, at last I find myself agreeing with you.

There is something strange happening in the upper crust private schools here in New York that is more than passing strange, and it's along these lines. I don't know very much about it, as I'm only hearing whispers so far, but I do know that it's alarming some folks, and it has to do with kids being coached at age 8 or 9 to decide on a "gender identity."

I can't remember thinking much about that topic when I was that age, I just knew I was a boy. There was never even a hint of anything else.

So I'm very disturbed about kids being told that they should begin to choose a gender identity before they even know what desire is! If indeed that's what's happening, I'm certainly not for it.

Wish I knew more, but I will keep my eyes and ears open.

Certainly, I support gay rights and same-sex marriage, as these are both part of the experience of being human, and loving people should have the right to have a fulfilling life. What I cannot support is anyone being pressured to make a choice at such a young age before they know anything about their own emotional makeup.

Shaming those who do not conform to some binary image of being male or female is also repugnant to me. In fact, shame about sex has destroyed too many lives throughout history.

Doesn't mean I'll vote Republican, though!

I'll just add this link to a 2019 change in NYC public school policy about gender self-reporting by schoolkids to the discussion, although it says nothing about kids being pressured to make a choice until they are ready to do so:

https://www.schools.nyc.gov/about-us/ne ... ty-schools

Here's an interesting quote from that:

Health Class: Students may not be segregated by gender for health classes, including for the first time, for classes that deal primarily with human sexuality. These new guidelines additionally specify that puberty education classes must be inclusive and affirming to all genders, gender identities, and sexual orientations, and use gender-inclusive language throughout.

I don't mind this, as long as there's no pressure brought to bear on the kids involved, and all is done in a healthy, respectful way. For instance, boys need to be taught to respect the idea that girls have a right to set boundaries about their bodies. Sunshine is the best cleanser, and young people should be led to awareness about themselves, both for health reasons and to avoid making dumb mistakes with their bodies that can hurt their lives.

In fact, I wish I'd been guided more carefully in those years myself. I'll bet many more mature readers here feel the same way.

[barney]

Janet Albrecthsen often makes excellent points.
This transgender nonsense is dominating all sorts of discourse. It's absurd. I can just see workers on building sites shouting at passing women "nice chest-feeding implements". (Of course they should not shout anything.)

What is unfolding is the antithesis of inclusivity and tolerance. Worse, it marks a disturbing detour from progress. Surely, our ­desire to support trans men and women need not be done by eliminating the reality of women’s biological identities? Yet only a handful of brave women spoke out this week in the British parliament about a law dealing with paid ­maternity leave that has expunged a pregnant woman from the law, choosing instead to refer to “a person who is pregnant”. Proving herself once again to be a gleaming light of logic, Baroness Claire Fox, an independent, said: “These new language codes and norms are mandating us to adopt doublespeak. Why do I need to describe myself as a ‘cis woman’? I am a woman; that is it — enough. I am not a uterus holder, nor a person with a vagina nor a chestfeeder. These are linguistic abominations, but they are not harmless. Ultimately, these body part descriptions demean women and are a linguistic assault on the notion that biological sex exists at all.’’

I am sure being transgender is a difficult thing, and I wish the path of such people to be as smooth as possible. But not at the expense of everything else, such as rational gender identity for the 99% or whatever of the population who are not transgender. And not, as we are now seeing, at the expense of a century of growth in women's rights.

[diegobueno]

Transgender issues have suddenly become a personal matter to me because I have a stepson who has decided at the age of 35 to come out as transgendered. He says he has known since he was a teenager that he was a woman, but he never told anyone because he feared being misunderstood or rejected. He’s felt unhappy being in a body that’s not in accord with his own identity. He still hasn’t told his father, but he just a couple of weeks ago told his mother and me. I don’t know what his plans for transitioning are and I can’t say I understand how it is that one can know that the body you have and have always had is not the one that you should have. Neither does his mother. But we both feel that if he’s felt that way for 20 years his feelings are genuine and he must know what’s best for him. We support him totally.

The presence of transgendered people in our society creates all sorts of new social, moral and legal problems that we’ve never had to deal with before. Legal documents have to be worded very carefully and exactly, so as not to unintentionally exclude cases it was intended to be covered. And yes, that includes awkward constructions you wouldn’t use in everyday life. I can’t keep up with all the new phrases (I initially thought “cishet” was a kind of wrench; now I’m relieved that Beethoven’s “Quartette cis-moll” didn’t change its gender, and that Liszt’s “Trans Etudes” did), and I’m pretty certain no one is going to force you to describe yourself as anything other than what you are, just as I’m going to try to make it so that my stepson doesn’t have to describe himself as something that he isn’t.

Really, all this squawking about “eliminating the reality of women’s biological identities” and “erasing women and biological reality” is a lot of nonsense, and raises knicker-twisting to an Olympic sport.The right really has to control its hard/regressive cohort. They make themselves look ridiculous.

[maestrob]

Certainly, Mark, I also cannot pretend to know how a transgender person feels about their gender identity, but, like my acceptance of gayness being a biological fact rather than some kind of emotional choice, so I would take a similar position here.

Many of us are willing to become wiser, but not all. Not yet, at least.

[barney]

Transgender issues have suddenly become a personal matter to me because I have a stepson who has decided at the age of 35 to come out as transgendered. He says he has known since he was a teenager that he was a woman, but he never told anyone because he feared being misunderstood or rejected. He’s felt unhappy being in a body that’s not in accord with his own identity. He still hasn’t told his father, but he just a couple of weeks ago told his mother and me. I don’t know what his plans for transitioning are and I can’t say I understand how it is that one can know that the body you have and have always had is not the one that you should have. Neither does his mother. But we both feel that if he’s felt that way for 20 years his feelings are genuine and he must know what’s best for him. We support him totally.

The presence of transgendered people in our society creates all sorts of new social, moral and legal problems that we’ve never had to deal with before. Legal documents have to be worded very carefully and exactly, so as not to unintentionally exclude cases it was intended to be covered. And yes, that includes awkward constructions you wouldn’t use in everyday life. I can’t keep up with all the new phrases (I initially thought “cishet” was a kind of wrench; now I’m relieved that Beethoven’s “Quartette cis-moll” didn’t change its gender, and that Liszt’s “Trans Etudes” did), and I’m pretty certain no one is going to force you to describe yourself as anything other than what you are, just as I’m going to try to make it so that my stepson doesn’t have to describe himself as something that he isn’t.

Really, all this squawking about “eliminating the reality of women’s biological identities” and “erasing women and biological reality” is a lot of nonsense, and raises knicker-twisting to an Olympic sport.The right really has to control its hard/regressive cohort. They make themselves look ridiculous.

Thanks for sharing that Mark. I don't think any fair-minded person would question your step-"son's" self-knowledge after 20 years. I have no concerns for society about any decision s/he makes. If s/he (sorry, not know best descriptors) feels at home after 20 years that's an excellent result.

I definitely have concerns when it involves pre-pubescent children and I'm afraid I don't agree that feminists objections are just knicker-twisting. Look at all the slime poured on J.K. Rowling or Germaine Greer, the latter one of the most famous feminists. And it's not just the nastiness, it's the absurdity. We are not supposed to use the term women any more, but people who menstruate or chest-feeders or other hideous circumlocutions - to me, the thought police are on the rampage.

Loved the trans etude!

[diegobueno]

I've just learned a new term today, "TERF", or "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists", a group which to which some say J.K. Rowling belongs. These are people who don't believe trans women are women, that men who go trans are trying to take something that belongs to women alone. My understanding of the concept is incomplete, but it seems like a fight within feminism. I sometimes wonder if the Horseshoe Effect extends so far that if you go too far to the left you circle back and wind up on the right. It could be that these people have found that place.

All I can say is no one can tell you what to say. No one can tell you to stop using the word man and woman.

My initial reading so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

https://gender.stanford.edu/news-public ... al-complex