I just marked one year on Substack* and that’s all the permission I need to share a few of my favorite posts… Loyalty tests: Calling a deer a horse: A true test of loyalty hinges on an invention, a piece of pure fiction. If an issue hasn’t been invented—or distorted beyond recognition—it’s a poor test of loyalty, an experiment contaminated from the start in ways that might skew the results.
Though somewhat en passant or relative to your, "For the overwhelming majority of society, ‘female’ and ‘male’ refer simply and unproblematically to sex", an article at The Critic by Jon Pike about MP Stella Creasy:
“But I think that what [MP Stella] Creasy is doing — whether she realises it or not — is re-engineering the concept ‘female’. And I think this is a mistake. .... Creasy, and others, want to decouple ‘female’ from the reality of biological sex. That project I find intellectually disturbing.”
But “intellectually disturbing” is something of a major understatement; I think it’s part and parcel of what more than a few people have called the “spectre of Lysenkoism” - the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable."
However, I've also argued that many GC feminists and radfems are part of the SAME problem by insisting that "sex is immutable" which is so much errant nonsense. By the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types. From which it follows that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless - includes about a third of us at any one time.
See the definitions for male and female in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Those ARE the biological definitions; they indicate that they are labels for quite transitory biological reproductive abilities. They're not any sort of "immutable identities" based on some sort of "mythic essence". Which is largely the problem of transgenderism in a nutshell - GCs, Radfems, and TRAs are ALL trying to make the sexes into identities instead of simply accepting the biological definitions which have to qualify as trump.
Your article about the parallels between anorexia and body/gender dysphoria is quite interesting - could you recommend some further reading on this? I have suspected for awhile that the two have significant overlap, but never have had a concrete way to back it up.
So grateful I discovered you and Happy Birthday! 💗🎁😊🎊🎂 Your writing is like discovering an endless supply of diamonds in the muddy bottom of the sewage pit that passes for discourse today. You've certainly been a gift to all of us who are starving for meaningful analysis of what's happening in the world. Thank you!
This is a gem that neatly encapsulates the entire premise of the mental dysfunctions in our culture:
“Medical providers tend to frame anorexia as the pathological pursuit of an (objectified) female form. I tend to see it as the opposite: a pathological rejection of objectification and sexual development. The fear isn’t becoming fat so much as becoming flesh. The anorexic persecutes the body that betrays ‘the self’ by its very existence: by its femaleness, by its soft curves and dark secrets, by blood, by the reproductive potential written into female flesh and by the things society writes on that flesh. Anorexics aspire to be pure spirit, pure intellect. They need only one food: not to violate the ‘self’ by becoming flesh.”
How many girl's and women's bodies must be mutilated and sacrificed on the altar of patriarchy before women rise up and reclaim our rightful place as matriarchs of our species??? Which is how we evolved in the first place. More and more archeological evidence is surfacing that supports the theory that it was women who directed the tribes and created the tools and discovered the resources that helped the clan survive. It was the gatherers who kept the men fed and the babies nurtured into the next generation.
Those are some excellent outtakes from your articles. You are a very good writer.
"Do you agree with the statement 'A trans woman is a woman'?" is just gaslighting. It is an attempt to expand the definition of the word “woman” to include transgender women.
I hope you don't mind if I recommend an article by Debbie Hayton, a trans woman in England:
It is about a professional woman in England named Elaine Miller who specializes in women's health. In her writing, Miller mentions women and also mentions trans men, since many trans men still have their female reproductive systems. But Miller doesn't mention trans women in her writing because trans women are biological men. Well, some trans women have become incensed by this. Even though they don't have female bodies, they want to be included in her articles on the principle that they are "women" and therefore should be included, even if they aren't relevant to what's being discussed. Pretty ridiculous.
Not just "pretty ridiculous", but pretty psychotic. People in general get rather "peeved" when they get disabused of their delusions. For example, see the "It's ma'am'" YouTube video.
Hayton is an interesting character -- a man who was a father and husband and then late in life decided to transition to being a woman. He doesn't look very feminine, and he freely admits that he is a man, although I think he does like it when people refer to him as "she". He has the same views as Eliza does -- very pro-women and anti-transgender ideology. I'll look up that YouTube video.
Blaire White, another trans woman with the right ideas, did a video on the guy showing him in his underwear lounging with and acting intimate with his son. He has convinced his son that he (the son) is trans. It's clear that this jerk is a very poor father.
Happy Birthday, and I hope it's the first of many! Your clarity is refreshing without being dry or irritable. (That's not easy; I've tried!) I'm a fan.
Congratulations! I don’t always read every post when it appears but it’s really good to see them and to know that a well-written commentary is there when I need it.
Congratulations and happy birthday. Your pieces are thoughtful, thought-provoking, and enjoyable. Thank you!
👏🥳🎉🎈😉🙂
Congrats; many more celebrations.
Though somewhat en passant or relative to your, "For the overwhelming majority of society, ‘female’ and ‘male’ refer simply and unproblematically to sex", an article at The Critic by Jon Pike about MP Stella Creasy:
“But I think that what [MP Stella] Creasy is doing — whether she realises it or not — is re-engineering the concept ‘female’. And I think this is a mistake. .... Creasy, and others, want to decouple ‘female’ from the reality of biological sex. That project I find intellectually disturbing.”
https://thecritic.co.uk/language-truth-and-logic/
But “intellectually disturbing” is something of a major understatement; I think it’s part and parcel of what more than a few people have called the “spectre of Lysenkoism” - the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable."
However, I've also argued that many GC feminists and radfems are part of the SAME problem by insisting that "sex is immutable" which is so much errant nonsense. By the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types. From which it follows that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless - includes about a third of us at any one time.
See the definitions for male and female in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Link: https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Those ARE the biological definitions; they indicate that they are labels for quite transitory biological reproductive abilities. They're not any sort of "immutable identities" based on some sort of "mythic essence". Which is largely the problem of transgenderism in a nutshell - GCs, Radfems, and TRAs are ALL trying to make the sexes into identities instead of simply accepting the biological definitions which have to qualify as trump.
Your article about the parallels between anorexia and body/gender dysphoria is quite interesting - could you recommend some further reading on this? I have suspected for awhile that the two have significant overlap, but never have had a concrete way to back it up.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/08/anorexia-breast-binding-and-legitimisation-body-hatred
Look up Hilary Mantel's piece Some Girls Want Out in London Review of Books, too. Not about trans, but fascinating.
So grateful I discovered you and Happy Birthday! 💗🎁😊🎊🎂 Your writing is like discovering an endless supply of diamonds in the muddy bottom of the sewage pit that passes for discourse today. You've certainly been a gift to all of us who are starving for meaningful analysis of what's happening in the world. Thank you!
This is a gem that neatly encapsulates the entire premise of the mental dysfunctions in our culture:
“Medical providers tend to frame anorexia as the pathological pursuit of an (objectified) female form. I tend to see it as the opposite: a pathological rejection of objectification and sexual development. The fear isn’t becoming fat so much as becoming flesh. The anorexic persecutes the body that betrays ‘the self’ by its very existence: by its femaleness, by its soft curves and dark secrets, by blood, by the reproductive potential written into female flesh and by the things society writes on that flesh. Anorexics aspire to be pure spirit, pure intellect. They need only one food: not to violate the ‘self’ by becoming flesh.”
How many girl's and women's bodies must be mutilated and sacrificed on the altar of patriarchy before women rise up and reclaim our rightful place as matriarchs of our species??? Which is how we evolved in the first place. More and more archeological evidence is surfacing that supports the theory that it was women who directed the tribes and created the tools and discovered the resources that helped the clan survive. It was the gatherers who kept the men fed and the babies nurtured into the next generation.
Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Cyborgs-Versus-Earth-Goddess-Domestication/dp/1530518458
Those are some excellent outtakes from your articles. You are a very good writer.
"Do you agree with the statement 'A trans woman is a woman'?" is just gaslighting. It is an attempt to expand the definition of the word “woman” to include transgender women.
I hope you don't mind if I recommend an article by Debbie Hayton, a trans woman in England:
https://debbiehayton.com/2022/08/31/the-gender-debate-is-getting-nastier/
It is about a professional woman in England named Elaine Miller who specializes in women's health. In her writing, Miller mentions women and also mentions trans men, since many trans men still have their female reproductive systems. But Miller doesn't mention trans women in her writing because trans women are biological men. Well, some trans women have become incensed by this. Even though they don't have female bodies, they want to be included in her articles on the principle that they are "women" and therefore should be included, even if they aren't relevant to what's being discussed. Pretty ridiculous.
Not just "pretty ridiculous", but pretty psychotic. People in general get rather "peeved" when they get disabused of their delusions. For example, see the "It's ma'am'" YouTube video.
But thanks for the Hayton link.
Hayton is an interesting character -- a man who was a father and husband and then late in life decided to transition to being a woman. He doesn't look very feminine, and he freely admits that he is a man, although I think he does like it when people refer to him as "she". He has the same views as Eliza does -- very pro-women and anti-transgender ideology. I'll look up that YouTube video.
Yeah - I've been following Hayton for some time, one of the more sensible and rational transwomen.
Would have posted the video earlier but didn't have ready access to it then; here it is now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb6OpRfyLFo
Oh, I've already seen that guy's tirade. The real outrage is that he has a son that he mistreats.
Really? How so? Details?
Blaire White, another trans woman with the right ideas, did a video on the guy showing him in his underwear lounging with and acting intimate with his son. He has convinced his son that he (the son) is trans. It's clear that this jerk is a very poor father.
Happy Birthday, and I hope it's the first of many! Your clarity is refreshing without being dry or irritable. (That's not easy; I've tried!) I'm a fan.
Congratulations! I don’t always read every post when it appears but it’s really good to see them and to know that a well-written commentary is there when I need it.
Happy 1st Birthday!
Thank you for your insightful, original and elegant pieces.
They have given me countless hours of pleasure and stimulating reading.
Your writing has an indefinable quality. Elegant without being flowery, accessible without being simplistic, and profound without being ponderous.
You are truly a gem.
P.S. Love the photo.