Define “real”
Hmmmmmmmmmmno.
No gender idenniny isn’t “real” any more than the “soul” is real. Feelings about what sex one is can be real. Intense unhappiness about what sex one is can be real. Unhappiness of that kind can be both real and as it were manufactured – it can be a product of social manipulation or contagion, while still being an intense feeling. But our feelings don’t necessarily mirror reality – in fact they very often don’t. It’s even possible to change one’s feelings by tweaking one’s description of them. We can talk ourselves out of feeling angry or miserable, and we can also talk ourselves into feeling angry or miserable. The feelings can be real but they can be based on very mistaken ideas, interpretations, beliefs. Trans ideology is strikingly prone to whipping up desperate feelings on the basis of total bullshit.
Sex is real: it’s a given, it’s something we’re born with and can’t change. Our feelings about what sex we are are real in the sense that we feel them (those of us who do), but they’re not real in the way sex is real. It’s like a lot of things that way. We can feel we are pretty much anything, but that doesn’t mean we can be whatever we can imagine ourselves being.
Then of course Tatchell cheats in the way this ideology always does, by changing the wording. “Real” suddenly switches to “valid,” without explanation or justification. The two are not the same.
They really can’t keep their story straight, can they? First off, is there is or is there isn’t such a thing as “biological sex”? And second, do “male” and “female” refer to sex or gender?
Talk that out amongst yourselves and leave the rest of us in peace, please.
They can’t keep their story straight because if they do it falls to pieces.
If anyone’s interested, I saw this at my local reference library. I couldn’t sign it out. I read the covers, saw the table of contents and started the intro, but I had to go. It looks like the motherlode for gender nonsense:
G ender M agic
If anyone feels like taking a deep-dive …
Apologies if this is out of line …
Not out of line at all.
Peter Tatchell:
That’s a flat-out lie. I have no gender identity. At all. Of any kind. And I am far from alone in this. Stop projecting untruths onto other people, as if you know something that you can’t possibly know. You can’t read minds; nobody can. Check your epistemology.
More Peter Tatchell:
That’s not a “gender identity,” you numbskull. That’s your sex. Your sex is male. “Male” refers to biological sex.
You’re deliberately conflating sex and gender, the very thing that you accuse other people of, when they are doing the exact opposite, and keeping the terms “sex” and “gender” distinct and separate. Stop gaslighting everyone with your deliberately obfuscating and confusing language. Stop projecting.
Peter Tatchell again:
Wrong again. Women’s SEX is female. That’s what “woman” means: an adult person of the female SEX. And that’s true of all women, including women who have no “gender identity,” and women whose “gender” is “masculine.” Even if a woman wishes she were a man, and even if she takes steps to mimic male physical characteristics, she will always, ever, and only be a woman, of the female sex.
Everything you’ve said here is a lie. STOP LYING.
I cannot even reconcile this tweet to itself.
“ Womens’ gender identity is female”
That’s weird, because female is my sex, and I have no gender identity. Is Tatchell trying to claim my gender identity IS my sex? I mean I guess not, because:
“Trans women have a gender identity that is not the same as their biological sex”
So… trans women are male (biological sex) but also female (gender identity)? That’s going to upset all those TW who swear they’re female. And if gender identity IS sex – as it appears by the previous statement – then what’s the deal with trans? They get two? More? Something else?
“Their trans identity is different but equally as valid as the female identity of other women”
I think you meant to say MORE valid, there Peter, since you’d never accept women prevailing in any “equally valid” clash of rights.
I say I don’t have a gender identity, yet Tatchell insists I do. Help, help, I’m being misgendered! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Etc.
I don’t think Tatchell is doing anything other than regurgitating the dogma. It doesn’t matter to him if he’s wrong. Most of the proponents of trans ideology hit a brick wall in their thinking process and enter dogma feedback loop, deliberately I’m sure. Maybe they’ll develop hymns so they can ingrain the mantras.
His style is condescending too, as if he’s addressing a kindergarten class.
This is one of the bits of rhetoric that convinced me of the movement’s religious nature, because this argument’s form is identical to the Calvinist argument from a divine sense. The only difference is that instead of a sensus divinitatis, they appeal to a sensus genderitatis. All the same BS is employed to make it impossible to deny that you have one.
So sex is biological and gender is spiritual. The prevailing horseshit. Got it.
Nullius in Verba @9
Sensus genderitatis. I’m gonna steal that.
Rolls off the tongue, don’t it?