To buy into gender ideology, you have to believe on some level that there’s a right and wrong way to be a boy or girl or man or woman. You also have to deny to yourself that you believe this. It helps if you can project this belief on people who don’t
I agree 100 % (as usual... can't remember a time I disagreed with Eliza!)
One thing I'm curious about is how much 'gender ideologues' genuinely believe this, or do they know perfectly well it's nonsense, but can't admit it to themselves (or anyone else) ?
The key paragraph in this regard is this:
"But, being liberation artistes, gender ideologues cannot admit that they believe there's a right and wrong way to be male and female. They convince themselves of their open-mindedness by insisting that anyone can be a man or a woman, regardless of sex (but dependent on behavior, presentation, and sex-role stereotypes)."
As you have much more experience talking to die-hard believers, what is your sense about it? Are they 'Genuine Believers' (and therefore blind to the sexism inherent in the position) , or Frauds/charlatans/liars' who are well aware of the position, but feel they have to bury any doubts/inconsistencies?
This really reinforces to me the importance of asking questions.
A while ago, a colleague of mine asked for a book recommendation on "projecting 'feminine' energy" or some bullshit and I asked something like "are you asking how to challenge sexist gender stereotypes?" and recommended "The Myth of Mars and Venus" by Deb Cameron (which is kind of a rebuttal to Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus).
A lot of people just blindly buy into crap like "feminine energy" or a gendered soul but claim "everyone has both inside them". My big question is: "If masculine and feminine energy is something everyone has, then why separate them into those categories to begin with?" Furthermore, isn't "masculinity" just the embodiment of dominance (muscular, virile, aggressive) and "femininity" just the embodiment of subservience (nurturing, yielding, objectified)?
In older dictionaries, you could find a definition of gender like "what is PROPER to each sex" which I think is a very useful definition as it describes the fact that there are behavioral proscriptions assigned to each sex.
I think I might do some of my own writing about this.
Yes you're totally right about the nonsensical contradictions of modern 'progressive' gender ideologies, but 40 years ago transexual people tended to be traditionalists in their approach to gender. Most wanted nothing more than to live a conventional life and occupy a traditional male or female role (obviously a source of much anguish).
It's only after feminism took over the banner of 'trans' as a power move, that the whole thing became a form of gender ideology (trans-gender-ism). Transgenderism is now just a subsidiary of feminism. This is why the whole thing has become a complete free-for-all with no basis in biological reality.
In a sense, the modern transgender madness (which has nothing really to do with most trans people in the traditional sense) has exposed feminism's madness because it has allowed males to indulge in the same radical and anti social behaviour that female feminists have been indulging in for decades AND GETTING AWAY WITH!
It turns out that as a society we are far more tolerant of ideologically possessed women running amuck, than ideologically possessed men doing the same.
EDIT: having to split my comment into two (I wrote too much). Sorry!
It's a great question. I would say the 'right' way to be a man or a woman is defined by the survival rate (and successful development) of babies, and over time, by the survival rate (and achievements) of civilisation itself.
In other words, humans have divided into two sexes so that each sex can SPECIALISE and therefore make humans more efficient and more capable overall. We have divided up our talents (and weaknesses) between men and women.
This is why feminism (which asserts that gender is merely a social construct) has been so catastrophic for the upbringing of children and by extension for civilisation as a whole.
As for the notable women of history .... they were 'men' in this respect: they tended to be outliers (far beyond the bell curve for normal women).
Women have much less variability (in terms of IQ, strength, ability etc) than the men. Women's bell curves are more bunched up and rounded, whereas men's bell curves are flatter and extend further in each direction. Men make up the majority of geniuses, and the majority of imbeciles too. Women occupy the middle ground.
Biologically, this makes sense, given that the role of motherhood is pretty fixed and constant, but the male role of provider and protector changes drastically depending on the age and environment we happen to live in (ice age, pre industrial age, jungle, desert, modern city etc).
We produce highly varied males each generation so that SOME of them will be naturally suited to manage the current environment. Those successful men are celebrated. The rest are (essentially) disposable.
This is why an exceptional female will tend to be perceived as being masculine (and vice versa).
Gosh this is good! I love almost everything you write. It always makes me think.
Sometime last year I admitted to myself that I couldn't buy the trans stuff anymore. I always had nagging doubts - but last year something clicked. (Is that what they call "peaking"?) Anyway - since then I have been reading and watching and listening to what ever I can.
But recently I have found things getting a bit repetitive. Same things being said the same way - and while I totally agree, I want to keep moving and growing and understanding.
Whenever I see that there is a post from you I get excited because I know its unlikely to be the same old same old, and that new ideas and insights will start going "ping ping ping" again in my head. My daughter describes this experience as "Having sparkles in my brain". Thank you so much for the sparkles in my brain.
The phrase “genuine believers” conjures up images of thoughtless followers blindly adhering to whatever the leaders of the faith tell them. There is no room here for genuine believers to think things through at all.
It has always been fairly obvious (to me at least) that transgender ideology is parasitic upon absolutely strict ideas about what a man or a woman should be. While the critics of this have no particular investment in any “essentialist” idea of gender, usually because they recognise quite correctly that what a man is and what a woman is are determined by prevailing historical and social conditions.
The fact remains that patriarchy, the powers of toxic masculinity and a long history of their dominance over society remain utterly untouched by transgender activism. Nobody seems to get that to be a man is to have a passport to power and to be a woman is to be excluded from the benefits of power.
To some extent addressing or confronting transgender ideology means accepting its ahistorical apolitical understanding of sex/gender.
Actually I believe now that hashtag no debate should be turned round. There are some positions or ideas that are just such incoherent tosh that they are not worthy of discussion. Many of these exist only because “genuine believers” are fed bullshit by people in positions of power.
When “genuine believers” are happy to contain their genuine belief among themselves, there is no problem. It is only when they expect everyone else genuinely to believe what they do that we have problems.
I don’t know if McCarthyism or the Spanish Inquisition provide the most appropriate historical parallel for analysing transgender ideology, but it is certainly using power to ensure we all become “genuine believers”.
I agree 100 % (as usual... can't remember a time I disagreed with Eliza!)
One thing I'm curious about is how much 'gender ideologues' genuinely believe this, or do they know perfectly well it's nonsense, but can't admit it to themselves (or anyone else) ?
The key paragraph in this regard is this:
"But, being liberation artistes, gender ideologues cannot admit that they believe there's a right and wrong way to be male and female. They convince themselves of their open-mindedness by insisting that anyone can be a man or a woman, regardless of sex (but dependent on behavior, presentation, and sex-role stereotypes)."
As you have much more experience talking to die-hard believers, what is your sense about it? Are they 'Genuine Believers' (and therefore blind to the sexism inherent in the position) , or Frauds/charlatans/liars' who are well aware of the position, but feel they have to bury any doubts/inconsistencies?
This really reinforces to me the importance of asking questions.
A while ago, a colleague of mine asked for a book recommendation on "projecting 'feminine' energy" or some bullshit and I asked something like "are you asking how to challenge sexist gender stereotypes?" and recommended "The Myth of Mars and Venus" by Deb Cameron (which is kind of a rebuttal to Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus).
A lot of people just blindly buy into crap like "feminine energy" or a gendered soul but claim "everyone has both inside them". My big question is: "If masculine and feminine energy is something everyone has, then why separate them into those categories to begin with?" Furthermore, isn't "masculinity" just the embodiment of dominance (muscular, virile, aggressive) and "femininity" just the embodiment of subservience (nurturing, yielding, objectified)?
In older dictionaries, you could find a definition of gender like "what is PROPER to each sex" which I think is a very useful definition as it describes the fact that there are behavioral proscriptions assigned to each sex.
I think I might do some of my own writing about this.
'Transcestors' - I love that.
Yes you're totally right about the nonsensical contradictions of modern 'progressive' gender ideologies, but 40 years ago transexual people tended to be traditionalists in their approach to gender. Most wanted nothing more than to live a conventional life and occupy a traditional male or female role (obviously a source of much anguish).
It's only after feminism took over the banner of 'trans' as a power move, that the whole thing became a form of gender ideology (trans-gender-ism). Transgenderism is now just a subsidiary of feminism. This is why the whole thing has become a complete free-for-all with no basis in biological reality.
In a sense, the modern transgender madness (which has nothing really to do with most trans people in the traditional sense) has exposed feminism's madness because it has allowed males to indulge in the same radical and anti social behaviour that female feminists have been indulging in for decades AND GETTING AWAY WITH!
It turns out that as a society we are far more tolerant of ideologically possessed women running amuck, than ideologically possessed men doing the same.
EDIT: having to split my comment into two (I wrote too much). Sorry!
It's a great question. I would say the 'right' way to be a man or a woman is defined by the survival rate (and successful development) of babies, and over time, by the survival rate (and achievements) of civilisation itself.
In other words, humans have divided into two sexes so that each sex can SPECIALISE and therefore make humans more efficient and more capable overall. We have divided up our talents (and weaknesses) between men and women.
This is why feminism (which asserts that gender is merely a social construct) has been so catastrophic for the upbringing of children and by extension for civilisation as a whole.
As for the notable women of history .... they were 'men' in this respect: they tended to be outliers (far beyond the bell curve for normal women).
Women have much less variability (in terms of IQ, strength, ability etc) than the men. Women's bell curves are more bunched up and rounded, whereas men's bell curves are flatter and extend further in each direction. Men make up the majority of geniuses, and the majority of imbeciles too. Women occupy the middle ground.
Biologically, this makes sense, given that the role of motherhood is pretty fixed and constant, but the male role of provider and protector changes drastically depending on the age and environment we happen to live in (ice age, pre industrial age, jungle, desert, modern city etc).
We produce highly varied males each generation so that SOME of them will be naturally suited to manage the current environment. Those successful men are celebrated. The rest are (essentially) disposable.
This is why an exceptional female will tend to be perceived as being masculine (and vice versa).
Gosh this is good! I love almost everything you write. It always makes me think.
Sometime last year I admitted to myself that I couldn't buy the trans stuff anymore. I always had nagging doubts - but last year something clicked. (Is that what they call "peaking"?) Anyway - since then I have been reading and watching and listening to what ever I can.
But recently I have found things getting a bit repetitive. Same things being said the same way - and while I totally agree, I want to keep moving and growing and understanding.
Whenever I see that there is a post from you I get excited because I know its unlikely to be the same old same old, and that new ideas and insights will start going "ping ping ping" again in my head. My daughter describes this experience as "Having sparkles in my brain". Thank you so much for the sparkles in my brain.
The phrase “genuine believers” conjures up images of thoughtless followers blindly adhering to whatever the leaders of the faith tell them. There is no room here for genuine believers to think things through at all.
It has always been fairly obvious (to me at least) that transgender ideology is parasitic upon absolutely strict ideas about what a man or a woman should be. While the critics of this have no particular investment in any “essentialist” idea of gender, usually because they recognise quite correctly that what a man is and what a woman is are determined by prevailing historical and social conditions.
The fact remains that patriarchy, the powers of toxic masculinity and a long history of their dominance over society remain utterly untouched by transgender activism. Nobody seems to get that to be a man is to have a passport to power and to be a woman is to be excluded from the benefits of power.
To some extent addressing or confronting transgender ideology means accepting its ahistorical apolitical understanding of sex/gender.
Actually I believe now that hashtag no debate should be turned round. There are some positions or ideas that are just such incoherent tosh that they are not worthy of discussion. Many of these exist only because “genuine believers” are fed bullshit by people in positions of power.
When “genuine believers” are happy to contain their genuine belief among themselves, there is no problem. It is only when they expect everyone else genuinely to believe what they do that we have problems.
I don’t know if McCarthyism or the Spanish Inquisition provide the most appropriate historical parallel for analysing transgender ideology, but it is certainly using power to ensure we all become “genuine believers”.
100%!!!!!