One of the most vexed subjects of our time is the fascinating assault on antique and established expectations of humans dividing into male and female and coming together as man and woman. The assault particularly takes the form of ‘trans’: and for some years this assault has been not only very aggressive, but very entitled, and has bewildered liberals everywhere: so much so that ‘trans’ has almost made any questioning of its existence an offence. Almost, but not quite: as the events of the Paris Olympics have shown (the liberté, egalité, bisexualité of the opening ceremony – not my joke, I saw it somewhere – and the 46 second boxing match between an XX and an XY), there is much controversy to be had.
I have written about this subject twice before in the Daily Sceptic, in articles entitled ‘The Bizarre Logic That Underpins the Trans Movement’ and ‘The Sexual Feedback Loop’. Here is yet another attempt to think about what is going on.
I
I think there is something to be gained by coining a new name for the ideology associated with the trans movement.
Our scripture today is On the Constitution of Church and State, where Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote: “The feminine character is opposed to the masculine; but the effeminate is its contrary.”
What is the difference between an opposite and a contrary?
An opposite is a thing of the same kind: thus their antagonism is constructive.
A contrary is between two things of different kinds: thus their antagonism
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Apostle Paul declared to his converts that they were no longer male or female but a new creation.
Is effeminism a one-way street? Is there ’emmasculinism’? That is, where a person born a woman identifies as a man.
The noted historian Tom Holland has described the ancient Roman attitude as one that sought a man who could be feminised enough to be used as a man. This is not same sex relationships as they are understood today. In fact, Holland has argued that the Apostle Paul created such relationships by definition when in his theodicy he explained that God had allowed men and women to exchange male-female sexual relations for same sex ones.
For most of human history homo sapiens were small groups existing precariously among vast wildernesses of swamps, mountains, deserts and forests. There was no time in that world of short lives, high infant mortality, no effective medicine or surgery, fatalities in childbirth to have variations of human relationships that impeded procreation.
In today’s world there are vast numbers of human beings, far more than is necessary to ensure the survival of the species. Is it surprising if luxury beliefs such as trans or effeminacy develop… Read more »
“luxury beliefs” I like that term and will try to remember it
What about the children
I am a simple old hick living on the rural boondocks of North Devon and so what do I know about any of this stuff? But for what is is worth I spend a lot of time working with the natural world and so I take my lead on this from what I learn from nature. My observation is that in the natural world male, female and sex are all about reproduction, most of the natural world has to focus on reproduction and having babies, it is so crucial to the continuation of the species that the need to reproduce trumps just about everything else apart from the need for food.
I am guessing that if we go back in history this was to some extent true for humans, do you have the biology to be a father or a mother? Surely consideration of sex and gender should start with the need for reproduction and having babies. Before people think about themselves and their own feelings and desires, should they not be thinking about what they need to be doing to ensure that babies are born and the species continues?
How about a different perspective? Nature qualifies behaviour and not the other way round. I’m a man, hence, whatever I do is part of “what men do”. There’s no supreme court of sex-related stereotypes which would have a right to judge my behaviour as male or female or whatnot and classify me accordingly, regardless of what I actually am.
Indeed. I wonder where people find the energy for all of this, tbh – life is hard enough just being you without overthinking it or trying fit yourself or others into some kind of box or category.
Interesting one from Sharron Davies as I didn’t even know this ”sex test” was a thing, and has been for decades. Doesn’t it come to something when we live in a time when even the simple matter of one’s sex is seemingly an ambiguous, contentious issue that’s become an ethical ( political? ) minefield, thanks to the social contagion that is the woke agenda, and to expect this to be brought back in as a standard test for athletes is seen as ‘discrimination’? Gender identity now trumping the basics of biology is robbing and endangering females. Seriously, how did they manage in sports competitions all throughout history prior to now, FGS??
”I’ve just done a bbc interview & several facts were presented wrong to me. These boxers did not have testosterone tests they had gender/sex tests. They were banned because they came back with an Y chromosome result. Testosterone levels are an utter red herring in all of this. Castor Semenya as per the written CASS report also states the ruling only applies to individuals with 46XY 5ARD – a DSD which only affects biological males. CS does not have unusual levels of testosterone for a female they have normal… Read more »
If you fancy a deep dive into the ‘sex binary’ this is a good explainer;
”The “sex binary” refers to the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female—and that these categories refer to individuals whose primary sex organs are organized around the production of either sperm (male) or ova (female). The “sex binary” does not entail that every human is unambiguously either male or female, even though the vast majority are.
This is an important distinction, because adopting the second framing is inaccurate and plays into the hands of activists who seek to debunk the existence of only two sexes by calling attention to the existence of rare edge cases (i.e., “intersex” conditions). But the first framing (“there are only two sexes”) is both biologically accurate and ensures that two distinct concepts—transgenderism and intersex—remain distinct. It also puts to rest the false notion that the existence of rare edge cases necessarily entails that sex is a “spectrum” and that we are all therefore intersex to some degree.
Crafting effective policy therefore requires treating transgenderism and intersex as the distinct concepts that they are. It also requires not falling into activists’ trap of conflating intersex with transgender. An effective policy to… Read more »
Applying the trans-logic to a slightly different biological area: The statement that humans have two arms and two legs is wrong because some humans are born without legs or without arms. Arm- and legity is therefore really a spectrum and the notion that humans have two arms and two legs an oppressive, socially constructed fallacy. Because of this, people should really be allowed to self-identify as having as many numbers and kinds of extremities as they like and specifically, people who pretend to need wheelchairs all day should qualiy for disability benefit regardless of them being physically abled-bodied or not. Further, people self-identifying as either arm- or legless (or both) deserve to be allowed to partake in the paralympics.
If you (someone reading this) think that’s idiotic, your brain is working correctly. Just keep in mind that sex organs aren’t special, they’re just organs and the argument doesn’t become less idiotic when being applied to them.
“Now, I am not defending feminism absolutely; but relatively it seems to serve a purpose. If men have a habit of thinking of themselves only, then it is a good corrective to remind them that there are also women. Feminism, seen this way, is a corrective, one way to establish balance.”
“If men have a habit of thinking of themselves only…“. But men generally do not. This is why men will literally sacrifice their lives to protect their children and their wife. Women and children first. It was only a couple of weeks ago that a man died at the Trump rally shielding his wife and daughter from a bullet. How about this instead? How about feminists stopping thinking about themselves and start thinking about humanity? How about feminists quit the hypocrisy (or at least start recognising it) – let’s take the recent boxing debacle which has inflamed rage everywhere: be in no doubt whatsoever that if the female competitor had won it would have been lauded from the rooftops with unabashed glee that women are men’s physical equal. How about feminists put down their perennial victim cards, recognise that both sexes are different, both face challenges and probably always… Read more »
“But men generally do not. This is why men will literally sacrifice their lives to protect their children and their wife.”
That was certainly the case in western cultures in the past (not quite so sure the younger generation of males would today, for various reasons) but I venture to suggest that it has never applied in some other cultures …. notably countries where Islam is practised and where a man is permitted to have several wives and women are considered more dispensable …. so the loss of one is less serious.
I’m a late baby boomer and back in the ’70s/’80s I was all for “women’s lib” ie education, job opportunities, equal pay for equal work etc; However, I do not consider myself to be a modern-day feminist. I have two (lovely) adult sons and I think the feminisation of education, society-in-general and the associated demonisation of masculinity has had a detrimental effect for both men and women.
Good points – Islam is the obvious example. And I want to thank you whole-heartedly for giving such a rare, sensible, and balanced opinion. I grew up as a child in the 70’s and there definitely was a bit of sexism (as well as a bit more racism, and even more homophobia) so I can recognise where we were and where we are now, which is an entirely different landscape. I actually yearn for the 90’s again, which I think was the sweet spot – when most men respected and liked women, most women respected and liked men, racism was on a steep downward trajectory as was homophobia. Nowadays it’s all about which victim group you belong to – everyone has one apart from white males it seems. Anyway, like I say, thanks for the cool-headed response – very unusual on here regards this topic.