Mar 17, 2022·edited Mar 17, 2022Liked by Eliza Mondegreen
If I were pressed to find a way to improve on your (as usual) trenchant commentary, it would have to be that you are too kind.
Here's a quote from the article you reference:
"While much has changed for female athletes since Stephens’ day, suspicion surrounding their gender and sexuality — from offensive remarks to sex verification tests — remains. Several historians argue that the heated debate surrounding transgender college swimmer Lia Thomas, whose record-breaking season has thrust her unwillingly into the national spotlight, is a continuation of that century-old legacy."
Facts are meant to be meaningless, when one sings from the hymnal of the Holy Church of Gender. Stephens was a female, competing as a female, making no pretense of being other than a female. Her offense was to defy sex-based stereotypes. The criticisms of her were shallow and mean, intended to deny a talented woman the recognition she deserved.
The entire point of the NYT article is to do exactly the same - to the talented women being cheated by the fraudulent charade perpetrated by Lia Thomas and his wealthy, powerful supporters. It is worse than merely an affront to the many women relegated to at-best second-place finishes. It tells them that they should shut up and worship this new male version of womanhood, like the rest of the righteous.
As you say, Thomas is male. As you also say, with characteristic elegance, the goal of this article is to "make the conflict unspeakable and unthinkable."
Very true. I would add that its intentional ignoring of clear facts, in order to pervert the ideals of fairness in sports and trash any hopes of girls and women to ever win first place, is not merely dishonest but maliciously misogynistic. And the lie is conveyed in a sneering tone that feigns virtue.
Agreed. They conflated everything--trans, DSDs, sexual orientation. Furthermore, they used Martina Navritilova as an example of a woman whose sexuality and even sex were questioned; meanwhile, Martina has spoken out against males, including Lia, competing in the female category, as had Renee Richards. Both signed the petition that just came out in the last day or so.
“laughs their asses off”; “brazen attempt to pillage the language”; “abusing language like this”
Amen to all of that, although I sincerely hope it won’t take 50 years for that “pillaging” and “abusing” to be given the short shrift it so richly deserves. Some evidence that more people are beginning to read the writing on the wall.
But it’s curious – and amusing in a gallows-humour sort of way – that that article by NBC News – who seem too gutless to open the article to critical comment – seems to be guilty of the far too common and seriously problematic conflation of sex and gender. For instances:
“... sex testing on female athletes whose gender was deemed suspicious ...”; “Scrutiny surrounding the gender of female athletes”
If, as is largely the convention, sex and gender are entirely different categories, and if access to competing in women’s sports is dependent on being a member of the female sex then why in god’s green earth is their gender – largely a synonym for personalities – of any relevance at all? Shall we have separate sports leagues for introverts and for extroverts? For each of the many personality types so far defined? (The Myers-Briggs system has 16 of them.)
But, ICYMI, an editorial in the British Medical Journal underlined that dichotomy and the importance of being clear on the differences – which you might pass on to the author of that NBC News article:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
Failing to recognize and refusing to accept that “sex and gender are not synonymous” is what is largely responsible for that “pillaging” and “abusing”. ICYMI, a couple of recent articles over at GC News that highlighted a particularly egregious case of that in Labour Leader Keir Starmer who boldly, if cretinously, asserted that:
“A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women and that is not just my view — that is actually the law. ....”
So. A woman is a female adult. And a transwoman – compound word like crayfish which ain’t – who’s a man, a male adult, is also a female adult. He might just as well go hog wild and pass laws stipulating that black is white and that “2+2=5”. Particularly since those statements are also as logically incoherent if not outright rank insanity: “ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, from contradiction, anything [follows]”
But sadly that conflation is far too common and is, as I and many others think, the proximate cause of so much trouble, so much grief and animosity, much of it quite unnecessary. As a further example, you might be interested in my Medium essay which describes my objections to an assertion in the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard that “she” had “transitioned to female”:
For which I’m now blocked from any further editing there. Which shows Wikipedia’s vaunted claim to a “neutral point of view” to be a rather sad joke; “ideologically captured”, indeed.
If I were pressed to find a way to improve on your (as usual) trenchant commentary, it would have to be that you are too kind.
Here's a quote from the article you reference:
"While much has changed for female athletes since Stephens’ day, suspicion surrounding their gender and sexuality — from offensive remarks to sex verification tests — remains. Several historians argue that the heated debate surrounding transgender college swimmer Lia Thomas, whose record-breaking season has thrust her unwillingly into the national spotlight, is a continuation of that century-old legacy."
Facts are meant to be meaningless, when one sings from the hymnal of the Holy Church of Gender. Stephens was a female, competing as a female, making no pretense of being other than a female. Her offense was to defy sex-based stereotypes. The criticisms of her were shallow and mean, intended to deny a talented woman the recognition she deserved.
The entire point of the NYT article is to do exactly the same - to the talented women being cheated by the fraudulent charade perpetrated by Lia Thomas and his wealthy, powerful supporters. It is worse than merely an affront to the many women relegated to at-best second-place finishes. It tells them that they should shut up and worship this new male version of womanhood, like the rest of the righteous.
As you say, Thomas is male. As you also say, with characteristic elegance, the goal of this article is to "make the conflict unspeakable and unthinkable."
Very true. I would add that its intentional ignoring of clear facts, in order to pervert the ideals of fairness in sports and trash any hopes of girls and women to ever win first place, is not merely dishonest but maliciously misogynistic. And the lie is conveyed in a sneering tone that feigns virtue.
Agreed. They conflated everything--trans, DSDs, sexual orientation. Furthermore, they used Martina Navritilova as an example of a woman whose sexuality and even sex were questioned; meanwhile, Martina has spoken out against males, including Lia, competing in the female category, as had Renee Richards. Both signed the petition that just came out in the last day or so.
“laughs their asses off”; “brazen attempt to pillage the language”; “abusing language like this”
Amen to all of that, although I sincerely hope it won’t take 50 years for that “pillaging” and “abusing” to be given the short shrift it so richly deserves. Some evidence that more people are beginning to read the writing on the wall.
But it’s curious – and amusing in a gallows-humour sort of way – that that article by NBC News – who seem too gutless to open the article to critical comment – seems to be guilty of the far too common and seriously problematic conflation of sex and gender. For instances:
“... sex testing on female athletes whose gender was deemed suspicious ...”; “Scrutiny surrounding the gender of female athletes”
If, as is largely the convention, sex and gender are entirely different categories, and if access to competing in women’s sports is dependent on being a member of the female sex then why in god’s green earth is their gender – largely a synonym for personalities – of any relevance at all? Shall we have separate sports leagues for introverts and for extroverts? For each of the many personality types so far defined? (The Myers-Briggs system has 16 of them.)
But, ICYMI, an editorial in the British Medical Journal underlined that dichotomy and the importance of being clear on the differences – which you might pass on to the author of that NBC News article:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
Failing to recognize and refusing to accept that “sex and gender are not synonymous” is what is largely responsible for that “pillaging” and “abusing”. ICYMI, a couple of recent articles over at GC News that highlighted a particularly egregious case of that in Labour Leader Keir Starmer who boldly, if cretinously, asserted that:
“A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women and that is not just my view — that is actually the law. ....”
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/sat-march-12-and-sun-march-13-2022?s=r
So. A woman is a female adult. And a transwoman – compound word like crayfish which ain’t – who’s a man, a male adult, is also a female adult. He might just as well go hog wild and pass laws stipulating that black is white and that “2+2=5”. Particularly since those statements are also as logically incoherent if not outright rank insanity: “ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, from contradiction, anything [follows]”
But sadly that conflation is far too common and is, as I and many others think, the proximate cause of so much trouble, so much grief and animosity, much of it quite unnecessary. As a further example, you might be interested in my Medium essay which describes my objections to an assertion in the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard that “she” had “transitioned to female”:
https://medium.com/p/410901a22da2
For which I’m now blocked from any further editing there. Which shows Wikipedia’s vaunted claim to a “neutral point of view” to be a rather sad joke; “ideologically captured”, indeed.
“If a woman is good at sports,” he said, people feel a need “to question why that is.”
Perfectly legitimate statement.