Trans list
Stupid confusing meaningless headline: check.
Trans scientist makes BBC’s 100 Women list
Meaning the “scientist” identifies as a scientist but has no actual qualifications to be a scientist and knows nothing about science?
No. Of course, as always, they mean a man who pretends to be a woman makes BBC’s 100 Women list. As always, they should say that in the headline, instead of burbling about trans scientists.
Broadcaster says Brigitte Baptiste uses a queer lens to analyse landscapes and species in a bid to expand the notion of ‘nature’
What’s a queer lens?
Nothing. Pretentious guff.
The BBC has included a transgender Colombian scientist in its annual list of 100 inspiring women, just days after sparking controversy over its choice for women’s footballer of the year.
Every year, the broadcaster compiles a list of women who have achieved great things in public life.
Its nominees include transgender biologist Brigitte Baptiste, described in the citation as a “trans woman” who “explores the common patterns between biodiversity and gender identity”.
Finally, in the third paragraph, the Telegraph admits he’s a “trans woman.” Why take so long? Why not be clear in the headline and the lede? It’s what the story is about, after all.
In a 2018 TED talk, Ms Baptiste claimed scientists had discovered “transsexual” palm trees and stated that the “change of sex and gender has been reported regularly in science”.
On this basis, she argued that it was wise to do away with ideas of “naturalness” in nature, stating: “There is nothing more queer than nature.”
So he’s saying “queer” isn’t natural?
Really?
Last year Nepalese transgender activist Rukshana Kapali was chosen for the list following a legal fight to change gender officially from male to female.
In 2022, the BBC included Erika Hilton, the first black trans woman to be elected to Brazil’s National Congress, and Efrat Tilma, the first trans woman to volunteer for the Israeli police.
Well why not just make the whole list trans “women”? If you’re going to insult women, might as well go the distance.
Such as what, pray tell? “Gender identity” is something that only humans do (mostly in Western colonial countries), i.e., people lying about their sex for cultural and political reasons. WTF does the biodiversity of species have to do with that? What “patterns” are you likely to discover? The “patterns” of humans lying about their sex seem to fall into two categories: men lie about their sex to gain power over women. Women lie about their sex to try to escape sex-based oppression.
It’s bad enough insulting women by including a man in the list of influential women. It’s adding insult to injury to regard this scientist’s “work” as influential in any way, rather than the incoherent twaddle that it actually is.
But maddog, didn’t you see that some palm trees change sex*? That’s totes the same thing! (Also clownfish.)
*And gender! Which makes me wonder: what does it mean for a palm tree to be transgender? A tree that’s assigned male at germination starts wearing skirts around its trunk?
Even if there are transexual trees (I’d need to see the studies before I commit), humans are no more trees than we are clownfish. In fact, we are more closely related to clownfish than we are to trees.
I agree, iknklast. If someone is telling me that he can change sex because clownfish do, I’ll tell him to go live in a sea urchin for a year, and then I might believe him.
“Do away with naturalness in nature” is just a pretentious way of saying “do away with science.”
It really is.
Next thing you know, nature will be queer in tooth and claw too.
Trans activists want to be able to use their argument from clown fish and palm trees unopposed. But attempting to forestall critics is one thing; changing reality is another. You might corrupt the language to redefine “male”, “female”, and “mammal” beyond recognition, so that their new meanings will accord with your political program, but the natural entities to which those labels are currently applied (and which, even in Newspeak, will surely require some new word with a coherent, useable definition) will carry on defying it, contrary to your wishes and word games. Genetics continued to operate in the real world regardless of Lyseko’s pronouncements. Sex will carry on in exactly the same way, as it did for the hundreds of millions of years it managed to before gender ideology decided to “queer” it.
The cult is behaving as if they genuinely believe that words are magic, and magic is real, so that they can change everything in the world by redefining the language they use; and if it doesn’t yet seem to be working, it’s because we’re not playing along properly. That’s why they are permanently in a state of fury – just like very young children who are convinced that the only reason they can’t fly is because Mummy refuses to say “Abracadabra!” with feeling.
If only the rest of us would play along with the changes in meanings, we could ALL be changing sex willy-nilly (snort)!
The “appeal to nature” fallacy is well-known: the idea is, if something’s natural it must be good. Of course, this is ridiculous. What I think needs more attention is the converse fallacy eg. the idea that if something is good, it must be natural. You’d expect the silliness of this to be obvious, yet accross the political spectrum, there are constantly people who are trying to prove stuff is “natural” or “unnatural” just because they think it matches their political views.
Consider how homophobic rhetoric is ripe with claims that homosexuality is unnatural: that doesn’t automatically make it immoral, does it? Likewise, ancient civilisations usually being male-dominated isn’t convincing evidence for men being innately superior to women. Nor is it necessary to dig through History to find instances of powerful women in order to establish that sexism is bad. (Although it’s certainly enriching and informative.)
Really, reverse appeals to nature are an attempt to sidestep a real examination of the issue at hand. They’re nonsensical, but facile and unduly impressive. Now, evidently, their use doesn’t mean that the cause at hand must be wrong or unreasonnable; broken clocks can be right. A perfectly decent cause can have inept promoters, and indeed any movement that is large enough will be plagued by some amount of poor reasonings. But when practically all the discourse you encounter is focused on dubious claims about nature and History, none of which make much of a case for the movement’s actual goals, I’d say that’s a cue the movement is probably nuts.
If the concept of “gender identity” is good and legitimate and beneficial to humanity and whatever, you don’t need to resort to palm trees to justify it. If “gender identity” is good, you’re not demonstrating it by claiming that nature is [homophobic slur that starts with the letter Q]. You don’t need to legitimize it by exploring “the common patterns between biodiversity and gender identity,” whatever those are.
If “gender identity” is good, you can show it by explaining *why* it is good. In fact, I can’t think of any other way to show that it’s good. It’s really not too complicated, either. It’s even fairly straightforward.
[…] a comment by Mosnae on Trans […]
Change of sex is well known in nature. “Change of gender” is gibberish.
Obligatory reminder: https://fondofbeetles.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/from-humans-to-asparagus-females-are-females/
Indeed. And even if Mummy does play along, telling the child that they really are flying, the neighbours, and strangers on the street are much less likely to indulge the child’s fantasy. In the wrong contexts, which in real life means nearly all of them, doing so would be cruel and dangerous. But this fantasy, the fantasy of transgenderism, is being floated by adults, and it is one that requires the surrender of our perception of reality itself. It’s pretence upon pretence. They’re pretending to be women, and we’re supposed to pretend that they actually are women. And they’re playing for keeps, as the terms of our surrender are supposed to include handing over to them everything that being female is supposed to entail in law and society, at women’s expense.
This campaign against “nature” and science is another front on this war. Trans activism might not be abWords might not change reality, but is still vital to the trans agenda. Promugation of the term “transwoman” won them a lot of ground that should have been denied, being as they’re not women at all. Just one word, but a crucial seed of unreaity inserted and into the discourse. This constantly repeated lie has grown into the very basis for all discussions of the issue, starting from their preferred perspective. What greater success could a movement ask for than having their Big lie repeated daily by millions of people, governments, and almost all media?
Using their definitions of the words that they’ve hijacked is an outward sign of compliance, a sometimes unwitting concession to play by their rules and accept their preferred reconstruction of reality. It doesn’t have to make sense in order for it to work; so long as we agree to give them what they want, and to accept that what they’ve already taken is now “theirs”, they’ve succeeded, biology be damned. The trans inability to change material reality has not precluded their having gained the power to change political reality.
This expectation of compliance is interesting in itself. It’s like trans identifying males expecting everyone else to be as comfortingly supportive of their delusion as those friends of theirs who tell them that they pass. When we don’t, we’re not being “kind”. Indeed, we’re hateful bigots who must be punished. The branding of critics and resistors as a hateful minority, is a desperate attempt to prevent the silent majority who would likely oppose trans activism from realizing their own strength of numbers, which is another reason for dishonest language designed to fool and disguise the true nature of the genderist agenda. Women’s defence of their rights and spaces becomes an “attack” against trans. Preventing pediatric mutilation becomes an “attack” on “trans kids”.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason(s), there are far too many adults who are more than willing to go along with TiMs to the extent that they themselves will punish those who refuse to “play” along. Except this is no longer a matter of “kindness” but of obedience. This play has become compulsory. We’re supposed to stay on script. But it’s akward, because it has to look like our submission is voluntary and joyful, rather than forced and demanded. This is one of the reasons why resistance is branded as some kind of extreme and perverse hatred, and why it is punished and shamed so publicly. Warning, threat, and enforcement all in one. We’re expected to help construct and maintain a kind of mental North Korea, where we all Love and Center our Brave and Stunning Trans Sisters.
I’m pretty sure I have a queer lens – massive chromatic aberration that gives everything a horrible purple fringe. For the none techies here’s a picture of a non-queer horse taken with a queer lens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration#/media/File:Purple_fringing.jpg
Thank you, not Bruce. I think that we have been far too patient as they’ve taken away everything we’ve worked for, and should now normalise laughing at them, mocking them mercilessly. It is, after all, what stopped the emperor in the morality tale from continuing his manipulation of the society.
And, as always, including a biological male on a list of women is not just a claim about him. The only way to make it true that Mr. Batptiste is a “woman” is to use the word in the Genderspeak sense of “person who thinks/feels/identifies/presents etc. in ways xyz (best left unspecified)”, which turns the whole list into an unjustified claim about what’s going on inside the heads of the other 99 people on the list. If x=y, then y=x. If I am what you are, then you are what I am. Once again, it’s all just a bad pun. No different than including a baseball bat on the same list as fruit bats, micro bats, vampire bats etc. If you have what it takes to detect a pun when you hear it, you already know everything you need to know to debunk all of Gender Ideology.
Another thing that struck me as I was thinking about this is the sheer gall of giving someone an award for science that studies only that which is a personal fetish. This is self-absorbed science, not the science that actually inspires and improves lives. It is done only for the purpose of one’s own preferences. Good science can be inspired by something personal, but it needs to, at some point, transcend the self-absorption in order to become inspiring.
In Gender ideology, it’s narcissism all the way down. The only puzzlement is that so many people who are not self-deluded narcissists have accepted the ideology hook, line, and sinker.
Seriously. Why isn’t it universally off-putting?