An innate sense of bullshit
Gender GP explains the science of gender.
We at GenderGP understand the true nature of gender incongruence where someone’s true gender identity is different to the one that society expects them to have based on their genitals.
Being transgender is not a lifestyle choice, a preference or a cool thing to do. It is an innate sense of self.
Wait. How are those different things? How is “an innate sense of self” not a lifestyle choice or a cool thing to do or a preference? What exactly is “an innate sense of self”? How does Gender GP know? How does Gender GP distinguish between “an innate sense of self” and what people grow up being told about the self and their own selves?
There’s no such thing as “an innate sense of self.” There’s only growing up and being told things. A child raised by goats wouldn’t have any “innate sense of self.”
It comes from the deepest knowledge and understanding of someone’s own identity, their heart, their soul, their brain, their being. Themself.
Woofle woofle woofle. Pretty words that mean nothing. Get drunk on your own rhetoric all you want, but leave everyone else out of it.
People who are gender incongruent, transgender, trans, gender diverse – whatever we want to call it, are real. They exist, they are honest, they are telling us something simple. Society expects them to be male, but actually they are female. Society expects them to be female, but actually they are male. Society is saying they must label themselves as either male or female, when neither feels right. Society expects them to fit within a picture of gender that has been constructed over time, but does not match reality.
Simple and stupid. Simple and crude. Simple and wrong.
No one child deserves any better treatment than another child. White, cisgender, able children do not need to be protected from any child that is black, trans or less abled simply because that is what they are. All the children in your school need to be protected from harm – equally.
Notice what they carefully leave out. Of course they do. They leave out male and female, because that would remind everyone that being male is an advantage just as being white or able is an advantage. (“Cis” is just nonsense.) They mustn’t remind us of that because it makes it too obvious what a disaster their ideology is.
Based on switching one (undesired) gender *stereotype* for another of course, because that’s what “society expects.”
You rebels you.
Basic category error. Society expects a male to be masculine, when they prefer what society calls “feminine.” Society expects females to be feminine, when some prefer what society calls “masculine.”. There’s no such thing as a male who “is actually female.” There’s no such thing as a female who “is actually male.” Your sex isn’t based on what “society expects.” It’s objectively determinable, regardless of what any ” society” may ” expect.” Human beings can’t change their sex.
*Unless they demand everyone cow-tow to their disprovable claims that they Know themselves to be something they’re not. Those people deserve the right to order others around,
**Unless they’re males who want to invade female spaces. Those males need all the protections from everyone, even if they’re white and able (well, except for their delusions. But those are normal so no nevermind. But still delusional males deserve special protections from everyone because pffffft.)
***Except females. They need no protections, because reasons.
****But some more equally than others.
@Ophelia:
Hmm, I’m not convinced by this. The case of a David Reimer suggests otherwise [quick recap: born a boy, a botched circumcision led to his penis and testicles being removed and him being raised as a girl; at age 14 he stated that he had always sensed that he was actually a boy].
Given that boy’s and girl’s brains develop suffused by different hormones in the womb, it would not be surprising if, as children, they had a natural sense of whether they were boys or girls, independent of socialisation and upbringing.
I don’t think that the defence of women’s right to single-sex spaces requires a rejection of the idea that gender dysphoria can in some cases be real.
I notice how they slipped race and disability in toward the end, still trying to ride on the backs of other, more successful movements.
Twee Disney song incoming!
And yet both gender — and sex — are supposed to be social constructs.
It’s quite a contradiction, this denial of objective categories consisting of the objectively true coupled with an intense belief in the innate and immutable truth of one’s own Identity. According to Yascha Mounk ( in his book The Identity Trap) this circle was squared by what’s called “strategic essentialism.”
Thus, the ability to believe two opposing things at once. We’re using metaphysical layers.
It would be a good idea I think for the Genderists to consider the distinct possibility that our deepest knowledge of our heart, soul, and being is also socially constructed, given how our nature was and is influenced and shaped from birth by our environment. All the talk of neural wiring causing transgender identities ignores the plasticity of the brain under different conditions. I am willing to entertain the idea that, given different circumstances in my upbringing and socialization, I might now be identifying as transgender. I might even be gay. If nothing is written in stone, fewer things were written in the prenatal brain than we can ourselves discern. Being extremely close doesn’t necessarily give us perspective.
At any rate, the contradiction between gender as social construct and gender as the inviolable Me-ness of Me gets to sit on the Science of Gender shelf next to the contradiction between wanting to eliminate strict binaries between the sexes while screaming that being referred to as one sex when you’re really the other strips away your humanity. Gender GP’s description of “the true nature of gender incongruence “ is nicely incongruent itself.
Yeah all that!
[…] a comment by Sastra on An innate sense of […]
Except you don’t really mean that. Not from the perspective of anyone outside your bubble of Rightthink. The children who are unsure and confused (or who have been made unsure and confused) about their sex and sexuality need to be protected from the proven harm of gender ideology. Let desisters desist, and there won’t be nearly so many detransitioners later on, whom supposed doctors and experts misled into irreversible interventions which they didn’t need in the first place.
But you still need your victims and guinea pigs, so you’ve decided to keep them for yourself by branding watchful waiting as “conversion therapy.” Surely “transness” is a conclusion rather than a starting point; not all dysphoric children are “trans.” (I’d go out on a limb and say none are, but, against my better judgement, I’m attempting to be somewhat charitable.) By declaring them “trans” from the outset, you’ve created your very own, legally protected, pediatric version of a canned hunt.
These children whom you’ve concluded are “trans” are now under your own particular purview, subject to your “expertise” and consequently, off-limits to anyone else. They are your own special preserve. My understanding is that many of these children are gay; many have mental health issues and comorbidities which “gender affirming care” are unlikely to address. At all. “The answer is trans. What was the question?” It’s a medically sanctioned, credentialled version of Munchausen Syndrome. You’re no longer able to see the horror of the iatrogenic harm you sell as “treatment.” Nice trick though, securing yourself a cohort of experimental subjects who can only be rescued by someone willing to risk both reputation and livelihood to extricate them from your state-supported power.
So when you wear your weapon-emblazoned T-shirts proclaiming PROTECT TRANS KIDS, it’s actually part of a turf war. You’re really protecting your right to treat these children as you see fit, through the blinkered view of an ideology which has convinced itself (and too many others) that puberty is a disease, and that the drugging, mutilation, and sterilization of healthy, physical bodies is “life-saving.” The greatest threat to the health, safety and well-being of these children is gender-affirming treatment itself. Let’s face it: your opponents are doing a better job of “protecting trans kids” than you are.
Coel @ 4 – I didn’t say anything about “a natural sense of whether they were boys or girls.” I said “an innate sense of self”, which is what Gender GP said and what I was disputing.
I’m from the Popeye school of “innate sense of self” >>
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHmunZxJeM
It’s very existential.
And then those things inform the stories we tell ourselves to explain our feelings to ourselves. And they can be wrong.
The feelings can be real and the stories can be dead wrong. Wrong, and dysfunctional. Yes, you should be free to be gender non-conforming, but you really are the sex you really are. Why is it so damn difficult for these cultists to just acknowledge this?
But twiliter, what if I don’t identify as a tuber?
Well you am what you am Lady M, and that’s ok with me. ;)