The people behind you have a bus to catch
It still amazes me to see how people get lost in the maze of Jargon Absolutism – of treating certain sanctified verbal formulas as if they were reality itself. Say it and it becomes true no matter how nonsensical the content.
https://twitter.com/DrAdrianHarrop/status/1010142561380552704
Blar blar identities are valid – the sacred formula is uttered and the molecules are changed. But what does it mean? What does it mean to say an “identity” is “valid”?
Identity can be a prosaic factual matter to do with some basic facts about who one is, as with an ID card to use a service one has paid for or registered for or both. It starts with name and can included date of birth, place of birth, sex, address, height and weight, eye color – neutral emotionless facts. That kind of identity is valid if the facts are correct and invalid if any of the facts have been falsified. That’s neither political nor interesting. But DOCTOR Adrian Harrop isn’t talking about that kind of identity, he’s talking about the new, holy, sacred kind of identity, that has no precise definition but is all the more mandatory for that. The less factual it is, the more the harrops need to shout about its validity on Twitter.
But Harrop wants this sacred kind of identity to be confirmed on the factual identity documents as well as in the throbbing hearts of devotees. That’s ludicrous. It’s like insisting that passports should include one’s favorite book or video game or city or bird. That’s not what passports are for. Passports aren’t little diary entries, and the officials who check them and stamp them don’t have time to learn about the glorious unique fascinating personality of the person presenting the passport. Yeah? When you show your passport you’re one of hundreds of people in a line of people and it’s not an occasion for showing off. Go ahead, be “nonbinary” if you’re dumb enough to think that means something, but passports don’t need that particular bit of your personality and it’s just boring tedious vanity to make a fuss about it.
And no their “existence” is not “denied” simply because their meaningless self-description is not included in their passports. My passport doesn’t say that I’m a nerd and yet I continue to exist.
I’m confused.* I thought that these people more than anyone else insist most insistently that gender is different from sex. Surely they MUST believe that, since they believe gender is an absolutely free choice that everyone can determine for themselves, but no one chooses their chromosomal makeup or subsequent biological development. So why should they care what sex is listed on their identification, since that has nothing to do with their gender?
(*Actually, that’s sarcasm. I’m fairly certain that I am not the one who is confused here.)
Well you see that’s the power of Jargon Absolutism – there is no need to worry about consistency or anything else, you just repeat the jargon.
Nail, head.
People not infrequently lie about their identity. That’s why we put objective, factual characteristics like height on identity documents.
But how very dare women say they’d like more than “I say I am, and that’s that” before allowing male people into their private spaces.
Genderists insist that we must never ever question a trans or nonbinary person’s identity. If they say they are, they are, and it’s bigotry to ask them for objective evidence. And it goes without saying that “sex” is no longer to be considered an objective category.
Is it fair to ask why there needs to be an entry for “Sex” on the passport at all? Photo, fingerprint, signature, whatever your nation uses for identification numbers, along with a rule requiring that photos be kept current seems like it would be sufficient.
I saw that a bunch of “fake transgender” men were disqualified in an election in Mexico; they were running for seats reserved for women, but they were found not to meet the rather minimal qualifications to be considered transgender (and thus eligible to run for those seats). I kept thinking how self ID would affect this situation. Apparently the political parties try various tricks to get around the gender parity requirements.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/mexico-elections-fake-transgender-candidates-disqualified
‘Treating certain sanctified verbal formulas as if they were reality itself’ Well put!
Harrop et al seem to be taking their cues from the authoritarian Yogyakarta principles which enshrine (tho don’t define) gender identity and demand that the general population be “prosecuted” for any sign of irreverence towards trans holiness. Well worth checking out as this doc is beginning to have global influence over NGOs’ and governments’ gender policies.
A friend of mine who is a theatre director cast a transwoman for the lead in Sister Act. She said she made sure that all transition had been completed, and she had surgical intervention as well as hormone therapy. I’m sure she qualifies as someone non-supportive – maybe even an evil TERF – for not accepting just anyone who says they are woman for the role.
If someone insists that gender/sex is so completely free from physical anchors, shouldn’t that mean that ‘sex’ is no longer a useful identifier and therefore shouldn’t be listed on passports?
Is no one noticing how the ‘infinitely flexible’ notion is flatly contradicted by the ‘gendered brain in the ‘wrong’ body’ claim?
What John the Drunkard said is exactly what we argued to the DC Council (which has a bill pending) and the state of Washington (which adopted a regulation) to require that IDs allow people to choose M or F based on gender identity and to use an “X” for anyone who claims nonbinary identity. The words are right there in the underlying statutes that require people to get IDs in the first place: “vital statistics.” But if the marker that denotes someone’s “sex” on an ID is just pick-at-will, it’s no longer a vital statistic. And all the record keeping that depends on the accuracy of that marker is from this point on completely unreliable.
What the F are all the adults in government thinking?
“Do it to her not to me?”