Let’s say transgender athletes pour into women’s sport, and let’s say, despite the flimsy and poorly-understood relationship between testosterone and elite performance, they dominate everything they touch. They sweep up Grand Slam tennis titles and cycling world championships. They monopolise the Olympics. They fill our football and cricket and netball teams. Why would that be bad? Really? Imagine the power of a trans child or teenager seeing a trans athlete on the top step of the Olympic podium. In a way, it would be inspiring.
Why is he so excited at this thought? A clue to his outlook is when he writes of "the inviolable rights of trans women to live however they choose and call themselves whatever they want". That's in line with the state ideology we all live under, namely the liberal idea that individual autonomy - a freedom to be self-determined in every respect, so that the "good" is simply what we desire or will as individuals - should be the overriding principle.
Our sex is something that is predetermined rather than self-determined. Therefore, liberals will see it as a potential limitation on our freedom as autonomous individuals. They will also see "trans women" as asserting a freedom and a right, as Liew puts it, of living "however they choose".
If this means that women get defeated in sporting events, then that's a price that Liew is willing to pay.
You have to remember that to have someone who is biologically male choosing to override this predetermined fact of existence in order to choose to live as a female is a very strong manifestation of liberal morality. We shouldn't be surprised if this is thought to trump other considerations, such as women in sport.
There are some feminists who don't like the idea of biological men who identify as women taking over female spaces (sometimes called "Terfs"). But they are in a poor position to defend their position, given that feminists have also pushed the liberal line for many decades, arguing that individual autonomy is what matters most, and that therefore the sex we are born into should be made not to matter, and that any attempt to link our biological sex to masculine or feminine attributes is to be condemned as "gender essentialism".
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the coming years. There will have to be women who will resent biological males dominating female spaces. But on what grounds will they object?
You have (once again) unraveled all the thinking behind his and their positions very successfully.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteWhere should the objection come from?
ReplyDeleteFrom the basic freedom that liberalism has tried to destroy in its effort to control everything:
Freedom of association and thus exclusion.
Simply set up all biological female events and competitions to enable this. The issue is the right to associate and chose who you will be involved with.
THIS is the basic attack that began the leveling and destruction of the West. And that is what must be reversed.
We just saw the an all girl group form a club in the Boy Scouts!!
This is the sickness that is eating at society.
These ongoing circular discussions will never end.
ReplyDeleteIf Jonathan Liew and Mark, and now Cecil Henry think that there is a difference between a "biological male" and a male, or a "biological female" and a female, then who is arguing what in opposition to what?
If male or female must be qualified with "biological", then clearly even here it is still an open question. Who is arguing what?
A male can not be a female. A female can not be a male. A man is male and a woman is female. A female can not be a man, and a male can not be a woman. Not every male is a man and not every female is a woman.
If, as I've said a 100 times, we stick to those simple, logical rules and correct, not align with others who don't, rather than accepting their misuse of terms and taking them seriously, then much of the mass psychosis that is increasingly affecting the non-mentally disordered, would fall of its own weight.
But, that's not going to happen. It's obviously too late. Even OZ continues to keep a toe in the disorder.
If, as I've said a 100 times, we stick to those simple, logical rules and correct, not align with others who don't, rather than accepting their misuse of terms and taking them seriously, then much of the mass psychosis that is increasingly affecting the non-mentally disordered, would fall of its own weight.
DeleteIt is very very important to be vigilant about this. It's so easy, often without realising it, to accept liberal terminology. Once you do that you're halfway to losing the argument.
I'm convinced that it is more than just important to be vigilant. It is critical that our words are precise. Words are the essence, they are at the heart of this issue. Reality is. Our words must always reflect reality.
DeleteThe British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled that a father who objects to the damaging psychological and chemical experiments being performed by the state on his minor daughter, will be criminally prosecuted, as will anyone who refers to his daughter as his daughter; as a female, a girl, or a young woman; or addresses or identifies her with a female pronoun; or by her female name given at birth; either directly or indirectly, verbally or in writing. The state has declared this father's daughter, is "he", and will force even her father to comply.
It's all words. She will always be female. She'll be drugged and likely mutilated under the authority of the state. But, in spite of what man's law forces men to say, she will live and die female. It's simple.
Civic society grows increasingly sicker. Every element of this sickness is a rejection and denial of the immutable natural order of being. It is proclaimed with words by judges, codified into words by legislatures, written into enforcement procedures for police and prosecutors.
A Martian lands in America circa 1800, says "take me to your leader". Why? "I want to know your people's first principles, so that I can decide where to stay". I say, sorry, I can't take you to him, but I can show you America's first principles. I have them in writing in my cabin. Read this, this, this and this; our Declaration of Independence, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, our congressional record of the debates, our Constitution.
Today, I would say. Sorry, no one gets in to see POTUS. If you're looking for first principles, that's a problem. If the United States formerly of America has anything like first principles, they're ever changing. You'll have to interpret them from hundreds of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Pretty much an annual event.
This sick "trans" disorder is one more step toward the final frontier; unconstrained consent in a lifetime of reparations for being born without consent.
If you want to see how this plays out, look no further than the recent fracas over the Auckland Pride Parade.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the organising committee banned the New Zealand Police from marching in uniform in the parade (they could march if ununiformed). This was in protest, I believe, to the Police objecting to a male prisoner being transferred to a female prison facility (on the basis the prisoner now identified as a "trans" woman). I believe the individual was in prison for violence and sexual offences.
Anyway, an ideological battle then ensued in public between the "pro-trans" and "terf" factions of the Pride committee. The "terfs" (trans exclusionary radical feminists) argued that the Police were justified, as there were sound reasons for keeping this particular biological male out of the female prison. The debate was fierce and included an MP (also a member of NZ's current governing party) saying she wouldn't listen to any "f#cking terfs".
The Pride parade attracts significant sponsorship from large corporates and local authorities. Much of this financial support was withdrawn until the Pride committee fell unanimously behind the "trans" factions.
In the end, the big money is with the sexual radicals. Don't expect this issue to go away.
"... this particular biological male..."
Delete"Don't expect this issue to go away."
Not a chance.
The big money goes where necessary in order to make more money. It is an amoral strategy, successful except when it isn't. Hillary outspent Trump by a big margin and lost.
ReplyDelete