RS: "I did that, in defiance of their royal feminist majesties Meghan Murphy et al, even."
👍🙂 She has her good points, and she even recently conceded that maybe, just maybe, feminism has contributed substantially to the whole transgender clusterfuck. But still seems rather "dogmatic" on various aspects of the issue -- and no few others.
RS: "... at some point if you are still rational and self respecting you see Woke + Anti-Woke, Gender + Anti-Gender, Trans + Anti-Trans all as mirror-images of one another — the same behaviour on both sides, neither being a solution ..."
Amen to that; pots and kettles; a pox on both their houses:
George: "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
"When elephants fight it's the grass that suffers." Particularly when a varying number of premises on both sides are rather less than water-tight. Little better than "conventional wisdom" and articles of faith.
But quite a thorough analysis of the case, at least on something less than the full reading that it deserves.
Though, en passant, I think you need to at least put "sex change" in quotes since nothing of the sort is taking place. Unless you subscribe the Kindergarten Cop definitions (KC): boys have penises and girls have vaginas. "Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!" 🙄
Though Christopher Rufo does likewise, but he rather clearly thinks that the KC definitions are, in fact, what the great unwashed -- at least among his Republican base -- think is the case:
Wonder how he will deal with the definitions endorsed by the State of Oklahoma:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
Still not the standard biological definitions endorsed by reputable journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- little better than folk-biology in fact. But arguably, something of a step in the right direction. Given those (less than perfect) definitions, I rather doubt Christopher, or his fellow travelers, would be capable of arguing, or would be so clueless to as to argue, that such "sex change operations" have actually replaced one type of reproductive system with the other one.
RS: "I did that, in defiance of their royal feminist majesties Meghan Murphy et al, even."
👍🙂 She has her good points, and she even recently conceded that maybe, just maybe, feminism has contributed substantially to the whole transgender clusterfuck. But still seems rather "dogmatic" on various aspects of the issue -- and no few others.
RS: "... at some point if you are still rational and self respecting you see Woke + Anti-Woke, Gender + Anti-Gender, Trans + Anti-Trans all as mirror-images of one another — the same behaviour on both sides, neither being a solution ..."
Amen to that; pots and kettles; a pox on both their houses:
George: "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11670-the-creatures-outside-looked-from-pig-to-man-and-from
More or less in any case.
"When elephants fight it's the grass that suffers." Particularly when a varying number of premises on both sides are rather less than water-tight. Little better than "conventional wisdom" and articles of faith.
But quite a thorough analysis of the case, at least on something less than the full reading that it deserves.
Though, en passant, I think you need to at least put "sex change" in quotes since nothing of the sort is taking place. Unless you subscribe the Kindergarten Cop definitions (KC): boys have penises and girls have vaginas. "Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!" 🙄
Though Christopher Rufo does likewise, but he rather clearly thinks that the KC definitions are, in fact, what the great unwashed -- at least among his Republican base -- think is the case:
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-16193243
Wonder how he will deal with the definitions endorsed by the State of Oklahoma:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
Still not the standard biological definitions endorsed by reputable journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- little better than folk-biology in fact. But arguably, something of a step in the right direction. Given those (less than perfect) definitions, I rather doubt Christopher, or his fellow travelers, would be capable of arguing, or would be so clueless to as to argue, that such "sex change operations" have actually replaced one type of reproductive system with the other one.