I take it the gentleman could continue to serve without any hindrance at all if he would only admit that he is a male? The military is, perhaps of all places, a place where reality matters. Identity does not. I suspect that the military would probably look the other way if Col. Fram wanted to cross-dress on his off-duty time -- tho even there, one might expect that the military would want their officers to be completely mentally healthy 24/7 -- but on duty one's mental disturbances should be stowed. Col. Fram reports that his subordinates are completely happy with him Identifying as a woman. I'd not be happy myself anymore than I'd be happy serving under someone who Identified as a Martian.
So you don't think that, all things considered, it would be better if one's Identity corresponded with one's physical reality? If not, then I trust you have no issues with my being a dolphin? And those people we now hold in institutions, who think they are Napoleon should be let go, and furthermore people should be required by law to address them as Mon Empereur? You don't want to be blind and narrow minded now, do you?
BTW, the Colonel should consider surgery. He is so obviously a male that ... what I'm saying is that some trannies do such a good job of looking like the opposite sex that one has to at least admire their dedication and the fact that they make it a bit easier on the rest of us. It shows a deeper commitment and one is inclined to go along with the show. Nope, I wish the Colonel would just accept the fact that the military uses biological fact to establish gender, and get on with his career. Off duty he can wear a dress as he desires.
I think I’ve answered you. It is always interesting to try to deal with those who insist on black and white when in fact life on earth is a continuum. They generally descend into insults or sarcasm or ‘well, everybody knows’,, and all the rest. At bottom, though, the problem usually is that they are simply uncomfortable with anything other than simplistic definitions.
The attempt at insult fails James. Sometimes the facts are 'simplistic' 2+2=4, very simple and very true. There is no 3d sex, and there is no 'continuum' between male and female. You'll be mentioning the clown fish, but that fails: a clown fish can change sex, but functionally it is either male or female, there is no point where it's half and half.
I have no reason to resist the notion that sex is a continuum -- if it were true, then that would be fine with me. It's just that it's not true. Indeed sex is possibly the only case in nature of a true and absolute binary. In most other respects, as you say, life is indeed a continuum.
I do not care if someone wants to identify as a gender other than their biological sex as long as they do not expect me to participate in pretending that they are actually the opposite sex, which is biologically impossible, or to provide courtesy and respect beyond what I would for any other person. However, serving in the military is a privilege not a right, and transgenders in the military is not about the transgender person, it is about the mission of the military and its purpose to defend our country. Our military members must be mentally and physically healthy and also to know and trust that anyone they serve with is the same, in any situation that troops may be in. Transgender people can cause confusion and uncertainty among members of a unit that depends on trust and cohesion to do the job, and this is a distraction that, if the transgender person actually understood the mission and culture of the military, would not want to cause for the other service members. Further, depending on how far a transgender person has gone in their transition, he/she may require daily hormone medication and maybe other interventions as well to maintain their semblance of the sex that they are not. There are many serious health consequences to taking cross sex hormones which very likely will affect the person's fitness to serve. In a deployment situation, the hormones may not be readily available and the transgender person could suffer from mental or physical health issues as a consequence, and it's not hard to imagine how that could affect the ability of a deployed unit to carry out their mission, or to handle an encounter with the enemy. Transgenders need to stand down and do something else to serve if they are so inclined, but not in any branch of the US military.
Yes Bree, you’re right. It’s deeply unfair. And wrong. I wish none of this happened. I wish we weren’t at vicious social “justice” culture war based on identity. I wish entire races weren’t vilified for the audacity of being born with ____ colored skin. Or entire genders despised for being _____. The Putins in this war aren’t me and you. They are our so-called social justice activists. Those who fancy themselves as righteous agents of change as their reason for being on this earth. Who ginned up this BRILLIANT scheme to attack and ruin entire groups of citizens while elevating their opposites based on nothing more than skin, gender, and sex preference. Not their behavior. Or character. Our so called social justice activists were certain they would be feted as heroes. As modern day civil rights liberators. As worthy of Oscar winning movies and Neil Young songs to give their otherwise boring, pointless, and lonely lives a reason to exist. Our so called social justice activists were certain the rest of us would see their wisdom. Would appreciate their heavy handed brow beatings. Would welcome their lash and beg for more of their corrective whip. That we straight, white men would take heed of our patriarchal systemic racism and transphobia and meekly slink into society’s corner to beg their forgiveness in sackcloth and ashes. Little did our so called social justice activists imagine we would collectively do the opposite. That we, too, might adopt this rancid identity-is-everything poison to fight fire with fire. To respond in kind. To elect an otherwise wholly unfit demagogue to lay waste to the entire power structure that manufactures and delivers this.
The Putin of this war on woke isn’t Trump. He’s Zelenskyy. He was hired to viciously fight back. To salt the earth of the academy and media and NGOs and institutions that gleefully deliver all this (notice how its “hatred” if the Right does it and “justice” from the Left…oh the rhetorical games we play). And he is RIGHT to do so. The Individual fairness baby got thrown out with the bath water many years ago. This is what war looks like. Perhaps we should turn on our so called social justice activists and tell them what we really think of the war they’ve started. Of the lives they’ve ruined. Of the fires they’ve lit. Of the vengeance they’ve inspired. Of the demagogues they’ve attracted. Let’s point the full weight of our ire and disdain where it REALLY belongs.
"In May, the Supreme Court, seemingly ignorant of the real harms being done by the purge, answered the government’s emergency appeal and the injunctions were lifted, allowing enforcement."
This Supreme Court is not ignorant of the real harms caused by their rulings. It simply doesn't care. This is a radically fascist Supreme Court that twists the Constitution into self parody - or simply ignores it - while smirking and calling themselves originalists.
Yeah, huh? What reality is that? That America elected a morally bankrupt, life long grifter and cheat who attempted and nearly succeeded in overturning a free and fair election? That said convicted felon now runs the government as a personal fief choosing winners and losers in business, running foreign policy by whim, firing bureaucrats who deliver news he doesn't like, branding news he doesn't like as fake and tarring journalists who question him as enemies of the state? Nothing fascist there.
True, but you change the subject. The article was not about Trump, it was about a trannie who feels the need to pretend to be a woman while in uniform. A subsidiary point is whether or not the definition of 'fascist' is someone who thinks that reality trumps Identity.
In my view that is not the correct definition. Recall that until perhaps 30 years ago almost everybody, of all political camps, remained in touch with a fact based view of the world. An ardent socialist of 30 years ago understood that the phrase 'pregnant man' was an oxymoron in exactly the same way an ardent nazi did -- reality wasn't political. Goals and value systems may have been in conflict, but the world was round, 2+2=4, water flowed downhill and men could not get pregnant.
If you want to claim that Trump is a fascist I'd say that's a reasonable claim tho I myself would disagree -- it's an insult to fascists who had a coherent political philosophy. Trump has no coherent anything. True, he lusts to be a dictator, but that's not the definition of fascist either. Most dictators are not fascists.
What exactly does it cost you or the nation when someone identifies as a different gender than their birth gender? The subject individual appears not to be a transvestite as you suggested but a gender dysphoric, one who served well enough in a very performance-based organization to rise to the rank of colonel. It is hard to rise from captain to major, very hard to make light colonel, and extremely hard to make bird colonel.
The philosopher Heraclitus recognized that "dogs bark at what they don't understand." Review the last sentence of your second paragraph with this in mind. 2+2 still equals 4, water flows downhill, and pregnancy still requires a uterus even if that uterus belongs to someone who identifies as male. There is a difference between genetic morphology and gender identity. It may offend you but who cares? It wasn't long ago that many were offended by blacks eating at "white" lunch counters and miscegination was illegal. One presumes you aren't clamoring for a return to that.
Finally, fascism is characterized by authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, and suppression of opposition. To my eyes that is a good fit.
> What exactly does it cost you or the nation when someone identifies as a different gender than their birth gender?
Good question. The answers range from the subtle to the obvious. When I hire a man as a laborer I expect him to be able to lift 100 lb without difficulty. If I hire a man, but it turns out that she's a woman, she will not be able to do that. Women require special accommodations for their biological realities that men do not. If my secretary can't come to work today because she has PMS I quite understand, but if it turns out that 'she' is a man, then I know he's malingering. And so on. You've heard the expression 'women and children first'? Would that include trans-women? Nope, it includes real women only because real women are entitled to special protections that men are not.
But it's more profound than that. It's about understanding that reality matters and that words should refer to realities, not fantasies. You will not understand.
> one who served well enough in a very performance-based organization to rise to the rank of colonel.
Marvelous. Then he decided that everyone had to pretend that he was female. You know, to be honest, if everyone in his circle agreed that it wasn't a problem then I'd be fine with it. Alas, trannies tend to start demanding that sane people refer to them by their chosen pronouns. If I was a subordinate of Col. Fram and he could live with the fact that I know he's a male and refuse to pretend otherwise, then I'd be happy to live with the fact that he feels the need to pretend to be a female -- live and let live, as they say. But no. I'm quite sure that the Colonel would demand that I go along with his fantasy, yes? Trannies demand 'tolerance' but they themselves display none.
> There is a difference between genetic morphology and gender identity.
Indeed. Although some trans advocates pretend that even biological reality is a 'social construction'. If you aren't one of them, congratulations -- you understand that there is such a thing as reality, but you hold that Identity is more important. I'd say that reality is more important and that, in fact, Identity is essentially nothing -- it is a state of mental fantasy.
I Identify as a dolphin. Alas, a trans-dolphin because I still have arms and legs. My pronouns are ... well, we dolphins don't use pronouns so you're off the hook.
> It wasn't long ago that many were offended by blacks eating at "white" lunch counters and miscegination was illegal.
Sure. Progressives used to attend to real problems and institutional racism was one of them. But trans is a bridge too far, they demand that reality itself is subservient to their state of mind.
> Finally, fascism is characterized by authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, and suppression of opposition. To my eyes that is a good fit.
You should study political theory a bit more. Authoritarianism and suppression of opposition fit the woke Left too. Nationalism, indeed is a characteristic of fascists, but it's not sufficient. As I said, if you want to call Trump a fascist I'd not say you were *wrong* in a binary sense, I'd say that you were 70% correct, but one might be a bit more accurate. Trump is basically an opportunist. He was a registered Democrat for most of his life.
Well Ray, there are women who can lift 100 pounds and men who can't. That's a physical ability thing as much as a gender thing. My days of lifting 100 pounds are behind me; a poorly treated high school football injury left my left shoulder needing joint replacement and a later baseball injury left my right shoulder not much better. But then I never really worked "strong back / willingness to work" jobs. I owned a manufacturing company. I never actually had a gender dysphoric applicant. But I made a point of hiring workers who fell outside hiring norms when the job opening allowed: felons, high school dropouts, former druggies. Many of them were short termers, sad to say. But some of them went on to excel, staying with the company for years, leading departments, marrying, buying homes. That's me. You get to hire whomever you'd like. But you don't get to choose who deserves basic human respect. If someone you see as a male wants to be called Sally, who gives a shit? Let's say that I know you prefer to be called Ray but to me you look like a Cletus so I'm gonna call you Clete. That wouldn't be right and I would never do it. It costs me nothing to learn the name that you prefer (which may or not be the name on your birth certificate) and I would use that name because you are entitled to that basic respect.
This made me laugh out loud: "you understand that there is such a thing as reality, but you hold that Identity is more important." The reality is that there are people who don't fit comfortably with your expectations. Identity is a part of reality whether you like it or don't.
But this made me laugh even more: "You should study political theory a bit more. " I'll be happy to match poly sci bona fides with you any time. And your assertion that "authoritarianism and suppression of fit the woke Left too" is a non sequitur. True or not it has nothing to do with my original point. FWIW, I was a card carrying Republican - what is called a RINO these days - for decades. I didn't move away from the Republican party, it moved away from me.
Anyway, the last word is yours if you choose to reply. I don't think we have a lot farther we can go here.
It is a biological binary and we did just fine for thousands of years with the legal binary. 'Sexuality' may be complex, but sex is not, it is one of the most profoundly binary of all biological phenomena. For all organisms above the archaea, there are precisely two very clearly different sexes: sperm producers and egg producers.
It is really astonishing how profound the binary is. One might postulate the existence of some phylum where one spegg can fertilize another spegg and there are no sexes -- but it doesn't exist. If they could go out for a beer together, male cottonwood trees, crocodiles, octopus, dragonflies, and guys from every other species -- would all recognize each other as dudes and wonder what their bitches want.
According to whom? Even within this thread the post of John Dickerson indicates that there are some 400,000,000 individuals with gender dysphoria. Which side of your binary would you put them on.
That is not to mention all those life forms which reproduce asexually. How do they fit into your world view?
The fact is that life on earth is and always has been a continuum. To assume otherwise is far more a psychological phenomenon than a biological one. Some of us are just very uncomfortable with that which does not fit neatly into one’s black and white world view.
This supreme court is the unfortunate result of decades of liberals coming to rely on the courts to create civil rights as well as enforce them, at the expense of doing the hard work of (I guess this is the point of this blog?) persuasion. Of course persuading people to give up prejudices that they have always regarded as “normal” is hard, but there is no shortcut. As liberals, decade by decade, broke farther away from the mainstream, an opening was created for the far right right to become normalized, to win not just the white house but also both houses of Congress and a majority of states. What used to be un-American is now accepted by a significant portion of Americans, thanks in part to the majority being told over and over that they were bigots, on the wrong side of history. Democracy cannot work without “demos”—you can only ignore the people for so long.
I’d be curious to have you define ‘civil rights’. For example, for over half of our existence as a nation, you, as woman, would not have had the right to vote. Would you have thought that merely a problem of persuasion? Would you have been happy to wait for the majority to come around to the decision finally made by the 19th Amendment.
How long would you have asked free black men to wait for what the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments accomplished? And against which a substantial portion of the American right are still fighting.
And were you black, particulariy but not solely in the American south in the century after 1865, how happy would you have been to wait for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
Was Brown v Board some sort of liberal enforcement problem when it overturned Plessy v Ferguson?
If you are truly an American, you don’t get to distinguish between which Americans get civil rights and which don’t.
I am very well aware of how long it took for women to get the right to vote, it most definitely wasn’t in the constitution or even the reconstruction amendments. It took years of campaigning, of, yes, persuading men to pass a constitutional amendment (since only men could vote in most states, that was the only way to do it). As for “how happy would you have been to wait” for black people to gain civil rights—are you suggesting someone could have waved a magic wand to bring that about? They did have to wait, unfortunately, and after all the hard work of securing those rights, liberals now deny that any progress ever occurred and assert that social justice now requires that we classify everyone by the color of their skin. No wonder racism is making a comeback—we’ve given the MAGA crowd the excuse to be as racist as they wanna be.
"it most definitely wasn’t in the constitution” In fact no definition of sexual identity as regards the franchise was in the Constitution. That was left largely up to the states.
"are you suggesting someone could have waved a magic wand to bring that about”
Precisely my point. It took the Warren Court and the Johnson administration to wave that 'magic wand', regardless of whatever stage of acceptance the nation was persuaded to hold.
And I’m sorry, but liberals do not now deny progress. In fact liberals have been the engine of progress, starting with the abolitionists, the Civil War, and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. But they are conscious of what still needs to be done. Have they gone a bit overboard in this area? Yes, but much of that has been in reaction to the right’s continuing attempts at exclusionary policy. Recall the south’s hysterical response to Brown v Board when it overturned Plessy v Ferguson.
Well silly me. I didn't know that Americans needed to be persuaded that freedoms were for everyone, not just for white, straight, Christians. Sorry Ms. Hofstader but if you can't accept homosexuals as equal Americans, you are a bigot. If you can't accept Jews as equal Americans, you are a bigot. If you can't accept the rights of those who oppose Israeli depredations in Gaza as equal Americans you are a bigot. It is sad that it took a Supreme Court to remind some Americans of that.
And I just love this: "you can only ignore the people for so long." We the People, i.e. those who look and think like me. (shakes head, walks away)
Biologically rooted gender dysmorphism affects a small fraction of the population. In over 95% of humans the brain and body follow a coherent path. In 5% or less, brain architecture does not align with XX or XY chromosomal development.
From an evolutionary standpoint, persistent biological dysmorphisms would likely have been written out of the genetic record due to their maladaptive nature. Yet they persist. Why?
Science is now honing in on a compelling hypothesis: abnormal maternal hormone levels, particularly elevated testosterone during weeks 8 to 10 of gestation, may disrupt the formation of critical brain structures responsible for gender identity. This is a natural occurrence.
In the last century these natural occurrences may have increased due to the introduction of hormonal disruptors. Pharmacological estrogens in the form of contraceptives are the primary consideration, however more recently, environmental xenoestrogens—plastics, pesticides, and industrial byproducts may possibly have contributed as well.
This evidence then suggests a pharmacological response, One that comes with profound ethical questions. Suppose research leads to a prenatal pill that would balance maternal hormone levels during gestation, reducing the likelihood of brain-body gender divergence. Would liberalism accept parental choice in administering such a treatment? Or would it recoil, fearing eugenic overtones and the erosion of identity pluralism?
Until some future pharmacological solution might occur, society must grapple with accommodation. First it must be understood by all that those with gender dysmorphism are in the biological sense, anomalies. This is not a moral judgment, but a reality. Those with gender dysmorphism deviate from the cis gender developmental patterns of 95% of humanity. That deviation must be acknowledged if society is to compassionately respond.
The challenge is the acceptance of two truths; That gender dysmorphism is a biological maladaptive anomaly, and that those who live with that anomaly are fully human, deserving of dignity, respect, care, and moral consideration.
The path forward need not be a continued cultural war of simmering tensions or boiling animosity. The acceptance of cultural divergence will never be met with celebration, and no law can provide heroic acclimation, nor dent the irresolvable biological sexual tensions. The right has accepted letting Providence be Providence, now can the liberals and left accept letting Provo be Provo?
As for the military, as Bill Clinton once said, I feel your pain. But just because you found salvation doesn’t mean the world is obliged to join your church. Personal resolution is not universal revelation.
Those that live with gender dysmorphism are biological anomalies, but they are fully human, deserving of dignity, respect, care, and moral consideration. Once those with gender dysmorphism learn to accept that fact, they can choose to live in Providence or Provo understanding the environment of both, and that changing Provo is not acceptable. Today they espouse the requirement that every town must be Provincetown, which I strongly reject. At the end of the day dysmorphism is a biological anomaly.
Once you define any human being as a 'biological anomaly', you open up all the doors of public bias against them.
And you do realize that you are talking about 400,000,000 individuals.
One must expect that any group which has been dehumanized, demonized, or even just considered ‘outside the pale’ for centuries is bound to demand recognition with a great deal of fervor. That has to be understood and accommodated.
Bias you say? I have a friend who's a thalidomide case -- one good arm, three flippers. I am not biased against him but both he and I agree that he is deformed. He IS deformed. You have this notion that facing facts 'dehumanizes' people, that's baloney and it's a good thing too, because since reality always wins eventually, it would be very unfortunate if the return to reality DID result in the dehumanization of the trannies.
So the Colonel is ‘deformed’? I know a great many people who would maintain that having a epicanthus fold is a form of deformation. Certainly Josef Goebbels made a very good living (for a time) maintaining that Jews and other non-Aryans were ‘deformed’.
The dehumanization of those whose existence does not fit neatly within one’s worldview is a practice as old as we are.
I never said the Colonel is deformed, of course he isn't. In fact, as I mentioned, he is so obviously a man that it's painful trying to pretend that he's a woman. You slander me. Any organism that manifests its genetic code without error is by definition NOT deformed.
The charge of dehumanization sticks to you better than me. I hold to the biological reality that humans, like all other mammals , are either male or female. Your view is that people are a strange dualist concoction of a socially constructed body that has no sex until one of 53 is chosen, and a gendered spirit/soul that is their 'true self' and that can be 'born in the wrong body'. Flat Earth is more respectable.
This is a strange new religion, utterly in conflict with science. Thankfully it is now in retreat. Sports bodies all across the planet are waking up, and restricting women's sports to females. Trans mutilation is now forbidden to minors in a rapidly growing number of jurisdictions. I predict that in another 5 years everyone will have forgotten that they once believed this crap -- or more likely pretended to believe it.
The definition of anomaly is not subjective. The sooner we teach gender dysmorphism as an anomaly of epigenetic origins the sooner bias can be diminished. Continuing to pretend that it is some function of will, can only perpetuate and even expand the bias.
And what percentage of alternate existence comprises an anomaly? There are numerous folks around who consider any skin color other than white a biological anomaly.
During the 1920’s and 1930’s a substantial portion of this nation, including the noted American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes considered their definition of mentally defective Americans so anomalous that they sought to sterilize them.
I never assumed gender dysmorphism to be some function of will, although I’m sure there are those who think it to be.What concerns me is that defining some human beings as an anomaly is perhaps the oldest form of bias there is. We are a very ‘us and them’ species. Our entire history as a race proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is inhumanly idealistic to assume that so defining any group is not essentially to put a target on their backs.
> And what percentage of alternate existence comprises an anomaly?
Good question. There will be edge cases, there will be honest disagreements. Reasonable people should attempt to see how much they can agree on and should cooperate to list the things that both sides agree are beyond the pale.
No reasonable person thinks that skin color is an anomaly. It is the natural adaptation to strong sunlight. We completely agree on this so don't try to use it as a weapon against me. Mind, if someone had green skin, I think we'd also agree that was an anomaly, would we not? A better question is what we'd 'do about it' -- I'd say we should do nothing about it unless the green skinned person started making trouble of some kind.
Thinking you are Napoleon is surely maladaptive? Thinking you are a Martian is surely a sign of mental imbalance? Would you want a Martian in a position where, should they receive a signal from the Mother Ship, they might launch a nuke? When you are a biological male, it seems to me that wanting to pretend you are a female is similarly problematical. It shows a disconnect with reality.
> What concerns me is that defining some human beings as an anomaly is perhaps the oldest form of bias there is.
That's quite legitimate. Indeed, we do 'other' people for any number of reasons -- some of them not very good. What to do? Abolish reality? I don't think that's wise. I understand the motivation tho.
Alas, I think it will backfire because, as we see, the forces of sanity will rebel and when they do they may blame trannies themselves for the chaos and take their revenge on them -- when in fact most trannies just want to be left alone and most of the troublemakers are woke cispersons.
People like Trump will cash in on the chaos, as we see. Better to keep our feet on the ground, and do what we can to help peripheral people short of granting them the right to force everyone else to go along with their illusions. I myself wouldn't dream of causing a trannie any grief -- until they start causing me grief. It is the excesses that the woke go to that cause all the problems -- including the reaction which is itself often excessive, as we see.
Sterilization addresses the remedy, not the anomaly. Don’t confuse the two. The existence of an anomaly is a matter of biological fact; how we respond to it—medically, ethically, socially—is a separate question. It was once heresy to suggest the sun stood at the center of the universe. But through the persistent teaching of facts, that heresy became bias, and bias eventually gave way to truth.
We have shifted society—at least across the OECD—from criminalizing gender dysmorphism to recognizing it. But recognition alone is not enough. Only by teaching the biological facts can we move beyond bias and toward understanding
Thank you for sharing your story. Your enduring call to service, especially in light of the current regime, is inspirational. Thank you for your patriotism and leading by example.
I take it the gentleman could continue to serve without any hindrance at all if he would only admit that he is a male? The military is, perhaps of all places, a place where reality matters. Identity does not. I suspect that the military would probably look the other way if Col. Fram wanted to cross-dress on his off-duty time -- tho even there, one might expect that the military would want their officers to be completely mentally healthy 24/7 -- but on duty one's mental disturbances should be stowed. Col. Fram reports that his subordinates are completely happy with him Identifying as a woman. I'd not be happy myself anymore than I'd be happy serving under someone who Identified as a Martian.
Mental Disturbances?
That is just that kind of blind narrow mindedness against which more of us should be turning.
So you don't think that, all things considered, it would be better if one's Identity corresponded with one's physical reality? If not, then I trust you have no issues with my being a dolphin? And those people we now hold in institutions, who think they are Napoleon should be let go, and furthermore people should be required by law to address them as Mon Empereur? You don't want to be blind and narrow minded now, do you?
BTW, the Colonel should consider surgery. He is so obviously a male that ... what I'm saying is that some trannies do such a good job of looking like the opposite sex that one has to at least admire their dedication and the fact that they make it a bit easier on the rest of us. It shows a deeper commitment and one is inclined to go along with the show. Nope, I wish the Colonel would just accept the fact that the military uses biological fact to establish gender, and get on with his career. Off duty he can wear a dress as he desires.
I think I’ve answered you. It is always interesting to try to deal with those who insist on black and white when in fact life on earth is a continuum. They generally descend into insults or sarcasm or ‘well, everybody knows’,, and all the rest. At bottom, though, the problem usually is that they are simply uncomfortable with anything other than simplistic definitions.
The attempt at insult fails James. Sometimes the facts are 'simplistic' 2+2=4, very simple and very true. There is no 3d sex, and there is no 'continuum' between male and female. You'll be mentioning the clown fish, but that fails: a clown fish can change sex, but functionally it is either male or female, there is no point where it's half and half.
I have no reason to resist the notion that sex is a continuum -- if it were true, then that would be fine with me. It's just that it's not true. Indeed sex is possibly the only case in nature of a true and absolute binary. In most other respects, as you say, life is indeed a continuum.
I do not care if someone wants to identify as a gender other than their biological sex as long as they do not expect me to participate in pretending that they are actually the opposite sex, which is biologically impossible, or to provide courtesy and respect beyond what I would for any other person. However, serving in the military is a privilege not a right, and transgenders in the military is not about the transgender person, it is about the mission of the military and its purpose to defend our country. Our military members must be mentally and physically healthy and also to know and trust that anyone they serve with is the same, in any situation that troops may be in. Transgender people can cause confusion and uncertainty among members of a unit that depends on trust and cohesion to do the job, and this is a distraction that, if the transgender person actually understood the mission and culture of the military, would not want to cause for the other service members. Further, depending on how far a transgender person has gone in their transition, he/she may require daily hormone medication and maybe other interventions as well to maintain their semblance of the sex that they are not. There are many serious health consequences to taking cross sex hormones which very likely will affect the person's fitness to serve. In a deployment situation, the hormones may not be readily available and the transgender person could suffer from mental or physical health issues as a consequence, and it's not hard to imagine how that could affect the ability of a deployed unit to carry out their mission, or to handle an encounter with the enemy. Transgenders need to stand down and do something else to serve if they are so inclined, but not in any branch of the US military.
Colonel Fram, to quote a line from A Few Good Men, you don't have to wear a patch on your srm to have honor.
Yes Bree, you’re right. It’s deeply unfair. And wrong. I wish none of this happened. I wish we weren’t at vicious social “justice” culture war based on identity. I wish entire races weren’t vilified for the audacity of being born with ____ colored skin. Or entire genders despised for being _____. The Putins in this war aren’t me and you. They are our so-called social justice activists. Those who fancy themselves as righteous agents of change as their reason for being on this earth. Who ginned up this BRILLIANT scheme to attack and ruin entire groups of citizens while elevating their opposites based on nothing more than skin, gender, and sex preference. Not their behavior. Or character. Our so called social justice activists were certain they would be feted as heroes. As modern day civil rights liberators. As worthy of Oscar winning movies and Neil Young songs to give their otherwise boring, pointless, and lonely lives a reason to exist. Our so called social justice activists were certain the rest of us would see their wisdom. Would appreciate their heavy handed brow beatings. Would welcome their lash and beg for more of their corrective whip. That we straight, white men would take heed of our patriarchal systemic racism and transphobia and meekly slink into society’s corner to beg their forgiveness in sackcloth and ashes. Little did our so called social justice activists imagine we would collectively do the opposite. That we, too, might adopt this rancid identity-is-everything poison to fight fire with fire. To respond in kind. To elect an otherwise wholly unfit demagogue to lay waste to the entire power structure that manufactures and delivers this.
The Putin of this war on woke isn’t Trump. He’s Zelenskyy. He was hired to viciously fight back. To salt the earth of the academy and media and NGOs and institutions that gleefully deliver all this (notice how its “hatred” if the Right does it and “justice” from the Left…oh the rhetorical games we play). And he is RIGHT to do so. The Individual fairness baby got thrown out with the bath water many years ago. This is what war looks like. Perhaps we should turn on our so called social justice activists and tell them what we really think of the war they’ve started. Of the lives they’ve ruined. Of the fires they’ve lit. Of the vengeance they’ve inspired. Of the demagogues they’ve attracted. Let’s point the full weight of our ire and disdain where it REALLY belongs.
"In May, the Supreme Court, seemingly ignorant of the real harms being done by the purge, answered the government’s emergency appeal and the injunctions were lifted, allowing enforcement."
This Supreme Court is not ignorant of the real harms caused by their rulings. It simply doesn't care. This is a radically fascist Supreme Court that twists the Constitution into self parody - or simply ignores it - while smirking and calling themselves originalists.
We live in dangerous times when simply facing reality is viewed as fascist.
Yeah, huh? What reality is that? That America elected a morally bankrupt, life long grifter and cheat who attempted and nearly succeeded in overturning a free and fair election? That said convicted felon now runs the government as a personal fief choosing winners and losers in business, running foreign policy by whim, firing bureaucrats who deliver news he doesn't like, branding news he doesn't like as fake and tarring journalists who question him as enemies of the state? Nothing fascist there.
> That America elected a morally bankrupt, ...
True, but you change the subject. The article was not about Trump, it was about a trannie who feels the need to pretend to be a woman while in uniform. A subsidiary point is whether or not the definition of 'fascist' is someone who thinks that reality trumps Identity.
In my view that is not the correct definition. Recall that until perhaps 30 years ago almost everybody, of all political camps, remained in touch with a fact based view of the world. An ardent socialist of 30 years ago understood that the phrase 'pregnant man' was an oxymoron in exactly the same way an ardent nazi did -- reality wasn't political. Goals and value systems may have been in conflict, but the world was round, 2+2=4, water flowed downhill and men could not get pregnant.
If you want to claim that Trump is a fascist I'd say that's a reasonable claim tho I myself would disagree -- it's an insult to fascists who had a coherent political philosophy. Trump has no coherent anything. True, he lusts to be a dictator, but that's not the definition of fascist either. Most dictators are not fascists.
What exactly does it cost you or the nation when someone identifies as a different gender than their birth gender? The subject individual appears not to be a transvestite as you suggested but a gender dysphoric, one who served well enough in a very performance-based organization to rise to the rank of colonel. It is hard to rise from captain to major, very hard to make light colonel, and extremely hard to make bird colonel.
The philosopher Heraclitus recognized that "dogs bark at what they don't understand." Review the last sentence of your second paragraph with this in mind. 2+2 still equals 4, water flows downhill, and pregnancy still requires a uterus even if that uterus belongs to someone who identifies as male. There is a difference between genetic morphology and gender identity. It may offend you but who cares? It wasn't long ago that many were offended by blacks eating at "white" lunch counters and miscegination was illegal. One presumes you aren't clamoring for a return to that.
Finally, fascism is characterized by authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, and suppression of opposition. To my eyes that is a good fit.
> What exactly does it cost you or the nation when someone identifies as a different gender than their birth gender?
Good question. The answers range from the subtle to the obvious. When I hire a man as a laborer I expect him to be able to lift 100 lb without difficulty. If I hire a man, but it turns out that she's a woman, she will not be able to do that. Women require special accommodations for their biological realities that men do not. If my secretary can't come to work today because she has PMS I quite understand, but if it turns out that 'she' is a man, then I know he's malingering. And so on. You've heard the expression 'women and children first'? Would that include trans-women? Nope, it includes real women only because real women are entitled to special protections that men are not.
But it's more profound than that. It's about understanding that reality matters and that words should refer to realities, not fantasies. You will not understand.
> one who served well enough in a very performance-based organization to rise to the rank of colonel.
Marvelous. Then he decided that everyone had to pretend that he was female. You know, to be honest, if everyone in his circle agreed that it wasn't a problem then I'd be fine with it. Alas, trannies tend to start demanding that sane people refer to them by their chosen pronouns. If I was a subordinate of Col. Fram and he could live with the fact that I know he's a male and refuse to pretend otherwise, then I'd be happy to live with the fact that he feels the need to pretend to be a female -- live and let live, as they say. But no. I'm quite sure that the Colonel would demand that I go along with his fantasy, yes? Trannies demand 'tolerance' but they themselves display none.
> There is a difference between genetic morphology and gender identity.
Indeed. Although some trans advocates pretend that even biological reality is a 'social construction'. If you aren't one of them, congratulations -- you understand that there is such a thing as reality, but you hold that Identity is more important. I'd say that reality is more important and that, in fact, Identity is essentially nothing -- it is a state of mental fantasy.
I Identify as a dolphin. Alas, a trans-dolphin because I still have arms and legs. My pronouns are ... well, we dolphins don't use pronouns so you're off the hook.
> It wasn't long ago that many were offended by blacks eating at "white" lunch counters and miscegination was illegal.
Sure. Progressives used to attend to real problems and institutional racism was one of them. But trans is a bridge too far, they demand that reality itself is subservient to their state of mind.
> Finally, fascism is characterized by authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, and suppression of opposition. To my eyes that is a good fit.
You should study political theory a bit more. Authoritarianism and suppression of opposition fit the woke Left too. Nationalism, indeed is a characteristic of fascists, but it's not sufficient. As I said, if you want to call Trump a fascist I'd not say you were *wrong* in a binary sense, I'd say that you were 70% correct, but one might be a bit more accurate. Trump is basically an opportunist. He was a registered Democrat for most of his life.
Well Ray, there are women who can lift 100 pounds and men who can't. That's a physical ability thing as much as a gender thing. My days of lifting 100 pounds are behind me; a poorly treated high school football injury left my left shoulder needing joint replacement and a later baseball injury left my right shoulder not much better. But then I never really worked "strong back / willingness to work" jobs. I owned a manufacturing company. I never actually had a gender dysphoric applicant. But I made a point of hiring workers who fell outside hiring norms when the job opening allowed: felons, high school dropouts, former druggies. Many of them were short termers, sad to say. But some of them went on to excel, staying with the company for years, leading departments, marrying, buying homes. That's me. You get to hire whomever you'd like. But you don't get to choose who deserves basic human respect. If someone you see as a male wants to be called Sally, who gives a shit? Let's say that I know you prefer to be called Ray but to me you look like a Cletus so I'm gonna call you Clete. That wouldn't be right and I would never do it. It costs me nothing to learn the name that you prefer (which may or not be the name on your birth certificate) and I would use that name because you are entitled to that basic respect.
This made me laugh out loud: "you understand that there is such a thing as reality, but you hold that Identity is more important." The reality is that there are people who don't fit comfortably with your expectations. Identity is a part of reality whether you like it or don't.
But this made me laugh even more: "You should study political theory a bit more. " I'll be happy to match poly sci bona fides with you any time. And your assertion that "authoritarianism and suppression of fit the woke Left too" is a non sequitur. True or not it has nothing to do with my original point. FWIW, I was a card carrying Republican - what is called a RINO these days - for decades. I didn't move away from the Republican party, it moved away from me.
Anyway, the last word is yours if you choose to reply. I don't think we have a lot farther we can go here.
Your understanding of the complexities of human sexuality is as meager as all the others who would love to have it reduced to a simple legal binary.
It is a biological binary and we did just fine for thousands of years with the legal binary. 'Sexuality' may be complex, but sex is not, it is one of the most profoundly binary of all biological phenomena. For all organisms above the archaea, there are precisely two very clearly different sexes: sperm producers and egg producers.
It is really astonishing how profound the binary is. One might postulate the existence of some phylum where one spegg can fertilize another spegg and there are no sexes -- but it doesn't exist. If they could go out for a beer together, male cottonwood trees, crocodiles, octopus, dragonflies, and guys from every other species -- would all recognize each other as dudes and wonder what their bitches want.
According to whom? Even within this thread the post of John Dickerson indicates that there are some 400,000,000 individuals with gender dysphoria. Which side of your binary would you put them on.
That is not to mention all those life forms which reproduce asexually. How do they fit into your world view?
The fact is that life on earth is and always has been a continuum. To assume otherwise is far more a psychological phenomenon than a biological one. Some of us are just very uncomfortable with that which does not fit neatly into one’s black and white world view.
Ok, maybe not the cottonwood tree.
This supreme court is the unfortunate result of decades of liberals coming to rely on the courts to create civil rights as well as enforce them, at the expense of doing the hard work of (I guess this is the point of this blog?) persuasion. Of course persuading people to give up prejudices that they have always regarded as “normal” is hard, but there is no shortcut. As liberals, decade by decade, broke farther away from the mainstream, an opening was created for the far right right to become normalized, to win not just the white house but also both houses of Congress and a majority of states. What used to be un-American is now accepted by a significant portion of Americans, thanks in part to the majority being told over and over that they were bigots, on the wrong side of history. Democracy cannot work without “demos”—you can only ignore the people for so long.
I’d be curious to have you define ‘civil rights’. For example, for over half of our existence as a nation, you, as woman, would not have had the right to vote. Would you have thought that merely a problem of persuasion? Would you have been happy to wait for the majority to come around to the decision finally made by the 19th Amendment.
How long would you have asked free black men to wait for what the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments accomplished? And against which a substantial portion of the American right are still fighting.
And were you black, particulariy but not solely in the American south in the century after 1865, how happy would you have been to wait for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
Was Brown v Board some sort of liberal enforcement problem when it overturned Plessy v Ferguson?
If you are truly an American, you don’t get to distinguish between which Americans get civil rights and which don’t.
I am very well aware of how long it took for women to get the right to vote, it most definitely wasn’t in the constitution or even the reconstruction amendments. It took years of campaigning, of, yes, persuading men to pass a constitutional amendment (since only men could vote in most states, that was the only way to do it). As for “how happy would you have been to wait” for black people to gain civil rights—are you suggesting someone could have waved a magic wand to bring that about? They did have to wait, unfortunately, and after all the hard work of securing those rights, liberals now deny that any progress ever occurred and assert that social justice now requires that we classify everyone by the color of their skin. No wonder racism is making a comeback—we’ve given the MAGA crowd the excuse to be as racist as they wanna be.
"it most definitely wasn’t in the constitution” In fact no definition of sexual identity as regards the franchise was in the Constitution. That was left largely up to the states.
"are you suggesting someone could have waved a magic wand to bring that about”
Precisely my point. It took the Warren Court and the Johnson administration to wave that 'magic wand', regardless of whatever stage of acceptance the nation was persuaded to hold.
And I’m sorry, but liberals do not now deny progress. In fact liberals have been the engine of progress, starting with the abolitionists, the Civil War, and the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. But they are conscious of what still needs to be done. Have they gone a bit overboard in this area? Yes, but much of that has been in reaction to the right’s continuing attempts at exclusionary policy. Recall the south’s hysterical response to Brown v Board when it overturned Plessy v Ferguson.
Well silly me. I didn't know that Americans needed to be persuaded that freedoms were for everyone, not just for white, straight, Christians. Sorry Ms. Hofstader but if you can't accept homosexuals as equal Americans, you are a bigot. If you can't accept Jews as equal Americans, you are a bigot. If you can't accept the rights of those who oppose Israeli depredations in Gaza as equal Americans you are a bigot. It is sad that it took a Supreme Court to remind some Americans of that.
And I just love this: "you can only ignore the people for so long." We the People, i.e. those who look and think like me. (shakes head, walks away)
It seems to me that uniform is a key requirement for military service. A gender cross-dressing fetish is fine, but not on company time.
Piss off, man. I'm uninterested in you gatekeeping the people who have made personal sacrifices to keep us safe.
Biologically rooted gender dysmorphism affects a small fraction of the population. In over 95% of humans the brain and body follow a coherent path. In 5% or less, brain architecture does not align with XX or XY chromosomal development.
From an evolutionary standpoint, persistent biological dysmorphisms would likely have been written out of the genetic record due to their maladaptive nature. Yet they persist. Why?
Science is now honing in on a compelling hypothesis: abnormal maternal hormone levels, particularly elevated testosterone during weeks 8 to 10 of gestation, may disrupt the formation of critical brain structures responsible for gender identity. This is a natural occurrence.
In the last century these natural occurrences may have increased due to the introduction of hormonal disruptors. Pharmacological estrogens in the form of contraceptives are the primary consideration, however more recently, environmental xenoestrogens—plastics, pesticides, and industrial byproducts may possibly have contributed as well.
This evidence then suggests a pharmacological response, One that comes with profound ethical questions. Suppose research leads to a prenatal pill that would balance maternal hormone levels during gestation, reducing the likelihood of brain-body gender divergence. Would liberalism accept parental choice in administering such a treatment? Or would it recoil, fearing eugenic overtones and the erosion of identity pluralism?
Until some future pharmacological solution might occur, society must grapple with accommodation. First it must be understood by all that those with gender dysmorphism are in the biological sense, anomalies. This is not a moral judgment, but a reality. Those with gender dysmorphism deviate from the cis gender developmental patterns of 95% of humanity. That deviation must be acknowledged if society is to compassionately respond.
The challenge is the acceptance of two truths; That gender dysmorphism is a biological maladaptive anomaly, and that those who live with that anomaly are fully human, deserving of dignity, respect, care, and moral consideration.
The path forward need not be a continued cultural war of simmering tensions or boiling animosity. The acceptance of cultural divergence will never be met with celebration, and no law can provide heroic acclimation, nor dent the irresolvable biological sexual tensions. The right has accepted letting Providence be Providence, now can the liberals and left accept letting Provo be Provo?
As for the military, as Bill Clinton once said, I feel your pain. But just because you found salvation doesn’t mean the world is obliged to join your church. Personal resolution is not universal revelation.
In other words, they are biological deviants but we have to humor them because they can’t help it. That will surely solve the prejudice problem.
Those that live with gender dysmorphism are biological anomalies, but they are fully human, deserving of dignity, respect, care, and moral consideration. Once those with gender dysmorphism learn to accept that fact, they can choose to live in Providence or Provo understanding the environment of both, and that changing Provo is not acceptable. Today they espouse the requirement that every town must be Provincetown, which I strongly reject. At the end of the day dysmorphism is a biological anomaly.
Once you define any human being as a 'biological anomaly', you open up all the doors of public bias against them.
And you do realize that you are talking about 400,000,000 individuals.
One must expect that any group which has been dehumanized, demonized, or even just considered ‘outside the pale’ for centuries is bound to demand recognition with a great deal of fervor. That has to be understood and accommodated.
Bias you say? I have a friend who's a thalidomide case -- one good arm, three flippers. I am not biased against him but both he and I agree that he is deformed. He IS deformed. You have this notion that facing facts 'dehumanizes' people, that's baloney and it's a good thing too, because since reality always wins eventually, it would be very unfortunate if the return to reality DID result in the dehumanization of the trannies.
So the Colonel is ‘deformed’? I know a great many people who would maintain that having a epicanthus fold is a form of deformation. Certainly Josef Goebbels made a very good living (for a time) maintaining that Jews and other non-Aryans were ‘deformed’.
The dehumanization of those whose existence does not fit neatly within one’s worldview is a practice as old as we are.
I never said the Colonel is deformed, of course he isn't. In fact, as I mentioned, he is so obviously a man that it's painful trying to pretend that he's a woman. You slander me. Any organism that manifests its genetic code without error is by definition NOT deformed.
The charge of dehumanization sticks to you better than me. I hold to the biological reality that humans, like all other mammals , are either male or female. Your view is that people are a strange dualist concoction of a socially constructed body that has no sex until one of 53 is chosen, and a gendered spirit/soul that is their 'true self' and that can be 'born in the wrong body'. Flat Earth is more respectable.
This is a strange new religion, utterly in conflict with science. Thankfully it is now in retreat. Sports bodies all across the planet are waking up, and restricting women's sports to females. Trans mutilation is now forbidden to minors in a rapidly growing number of jurisdictions. I predict that in another 5 years everyone will have forgotten that they once believed this crap -- or more likely pretended to believe it.
The definition of anomaly is not subjective. The sooner we teach gender dysmorphism as an anomaly of epigenetic origins the sooner bias can be diminished. Continuing to pretend that it is some function of will, can only perpetuate and even expand the bias.
And what percentage of alternate existence comprises an anomaly? There are numerous folks around who consider any skin color other than white a biological anomaly.
During the 1920’s and 1930’s a substantial portion of this nation, including the noted American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes considered their definition of mentally defective Americans so anomalous that they sought to sterilize them.
I never assumed gender dysmorphism to be some function of will, although I’m sure there are those who think it to be.What concerns me is that defining some human beings as an anomaly is perhaps the oldest form of bias there is. We are a very ‘us and them’ species. Our entire history as a race proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is inhumanly idealistic to assume that so defining any group is not essentially to put a target on their backs.
> And what percentage of alternate existence comprises an anomaly?
Good question. There will be edge cases, there will be honest disagreements. Reasonable people should attempt to see how much they can agree on and should cooperate to list the things that both sides agree are beyond the pale.
No reasonable person thinks that skin color is an anomaly. It is the natural adaptation to strong sunlight. We completely agree on this so don't try to use it as a weapon against me. Mind, if someone had green skin, I think we'd also agree that was an anomaly, would we not? A better question is what we'd 'do about it' -- I'd say we should do nothing about it unless the green skinned person started making trouble of some kind.
Thinking you are Napoleon is surely maladaptive? Thinking you are a Martian is surely a sign of mental imbalance? Would you want a Martian in a position where, should they receive a signal from the Mother Ship, they might launch a nuke? When you are a biological male, it seems to me that wanting to pretend you are a female is similarly problematical. It shows a disconnect with reality.
> What concerns me is that defining some human beings as an anomaly is perhaps the oldest form of bias there is.
That's quite legitimate. Indeed, we do 'other' people for any number of reasons -- some of them not very good. What to do? Abolish reality? I don't think that's wise. I understand the motivation tho.
Alas, I think it will backfire because, as we see, the forces of sanity will rebel and when they do they may blame trannies themselves for the chaos and take their revenge on them -- when in fact most trannies just want to be left alone and most of the troublemakers are woke cispersons.
People like Trump will cash in on the chaos, as we see. Better to keep our feet on the ground, and do what we can to help peripheral people short of granting them the right to force everyone else to go along with their illusions. I myself wouldn't dream of causing a trannie any grief -- until they start causing me grief. It is the excesses that the woke go to that cause all the problems -- including the reaction which is itself often excessive, as we see.
Sterilization addresses the remedy, not the anomaly. Don’t confuse the two. The existence of an anomaly is a matter of biological fact; how we respond to it—medically, ethically, socially—is a separate question. It was once heresy to suggest the sun stood at the center of the universe. But through the persistent teaching of facts, that heresy became bias, and bias eventually gave way to truth.
We have shifted society—at least across the OECD—from criminalizing gender dysmorphism to recognizing it. But recognition alone is not enough. Only by teaching the biological facts can we move beyond bias and toward understanding
Thank you for your service
Thank you for sharing your story. Your enduring call to service, especially in light of the current regime, is inspirational. Thank you for your patriotism and leading by example.