We all know that today's world is thoroughly ablaze with this problem of gender. Sex, they say, is "assigned at birth." Then, in direct contradiction, they'll say that biology doesn't count; you are whatever you feel you are. You cannot be "born that way" because biology doesn't count. So you are whatever you feel you are right now -- that may change ... tomorrow. Society has ripped a page out of a lunatic's doodling and concluded that "gender is a social construct" which is "assigned at birth."
Just what does that mean? Well, "sex" is, technically, a term referring to your biology. It is a function of chromosomes, basically. It is science, pure and simple. Not a social construct. But "gender" is another thing entirely. That refers to expression. While "sex" refers to "male" and "female," "gender" refers to "masculine" and "feminine" -- how we express being a male or a female. And, if you think about it, certainly some of our standard expressions of masculine and feminine are societal. For instance, we generally think of "pink" as feminine and "blue" as masculine. Why? That is societal. (In the early 20th century some argued that pink was more suited to boys and blue to girls.) (Oddly enough, we have a new tradition that uses pink and blue in their "gender reveal parties" for unborn children who do not currently have an expression of their sex. Now, that's crazy if gender is a social construct.) So, while some of sexual expression is societal, it is certain that most is not. Notice how this works. The American Psychological Association defines "gender" as "the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex." Therefore, gender is a social construct ... by definition. That's like saying, "I define psychology as a lot of hooey; therefore, psychology by definition is a lot of hooey." Science, on the other hand, can give you lots of biological differences between male and female that clearly inform gender expression, as in these 50 examples.
So, where does this get us? It gets us to a logic trail that goes somewhere we didn't expect. If gender is as social construct, it is not a "thing." It is not a reality; it's a construct. Therefore, it doesn't exist. It is an idea but not a reality. It cannot, ultimately, be defined because society will change it as it goes. Untethered from physical, objective reality ("sex"), it is simply a matter of opinion. So the biological male who believes he's a female and changes his appearance and physiology to match a social construct is thoroughly confused because it's a construct, not a reality. He/she is not "getting to what's real" because "feminine" isn't. All that to say, "We know better, don't we?" Underneath it all, covering lies with more lies, we all know that a biological male is a male and there are absolutely expressions that go along with that, and the same with female. Trying to adjust a male to being a female (or vice versa) while denying that neither has an actual definition is not merely mistaken; it's irrational. Which, by the way, is a definition of "insanity."
8 comments:
This entire discussion gives new meaning to "follow the science".
What's interesting is that this new gender ideology is actually restricting how people can express their gender. The best example is that of the tomboy. The concept of a girl who likes to do stereotypical boy activities, yet remains a girl, goes back a long way. Yet now, this girl will immediately be told that she is "really" a boy and that she must immediately begin modifying her biology to accommodate this.
What I find most interesting about this is how much the "trans" movement relies on stereotypes. When you see a "trans" woman, they almost always take female stereotypes and exaggerate them. Sometimes to extremes. It's as if the essence of being a woman has been reduced to things like makeup, hairstyle, high heels, and dresses. To me, it seems demeaning to women to reduce them to such superficial stereotypes.
But, back to the topic, this is one more instance where Science must take a back seat to the Narrative. As we see by the growing amount of evidence that surgery and hormones do not achieve the desired goals.
They can't even keep that narrative straight because then they'll try to point to how "trans" people's brain scans will match that of their chosen sex, which then negates the idea that it isn't biological but cultural.
Stan, I found the video you included today very interesting and thought-provoking. Even interpreted entirely from an “evolutionary biology / psychology” perspective (as it was), the data she presented made very clear that humans cannot swap sexes without having brain transplants first. Denying the clear science is insanity, as you say.
Craig, I agree with your observation about the contrived appearances of men pretending to be women. You said, “It's as if the essence of being a woman has been reduced to things like makeup, hairstyle, high heels, and dresses.” It strikes me that the attempts by these men at supposedly “becoming women” are by necessity restricted to such superficial aspects (with perhaps also the small changes surgical and/or hormonal treatment can achieve) because that is essentially all a biological male can really change about himself. In other words, a man will go overboard in “dressing up” like a woman because that is all he can do. I think of the obvious extreme example of this--“drag queens”--who I would say in general look more like circus clowns than real women. It all reinforces the fact that only outward appearances can be altered--and even that is not done very convincingly in most cases.
What an outstanding video!!!
Stan, I am assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that you might have chosen that particular video because it was NOT produced by a Christian apologetics organization, so that we could see some scientific facts even as presented by “the other side,” as it were (that angle is what made it extra-interesting to me). I noticed that the video was from 2016; therefore, some of the data she presented might not be the most up-to-date (but I am not planning to look at her sources that closely). I was, however, curious about the speaker’s “religious” status, i.e. whether she was nonreligious, an atheist, an agnostic, a believer, etc., since she included many references to “evolution,” humans as members of the animal kingdom, our society having evolved, etc. Apparently, she is an “orthodox Christian,” a large number of whom accept “theistic evolution,” I read. Just as I am skeptical about data produced by secular scientists with biases, I am similarly guarded about anything coming from the “theistic evolution” perspective. However, even with that reservation, I found the data presented very interesting.
I am curious about your opinion of the video and its content, if you care to share that with us all.
This particular post was not written from a "thus saith the Lord" vantage point. Without even going to the Word of God, I was pointing out from reason and science that today's views on gender make no sense. I chose that video because it was simply biology. The origins of the biology (they refer to "Evolution") are irrelevant to the point. Biology drives much (most) of our expression of sex ("gender") and not opinion or society. When the opponents of the Word refuse their own sources, it is a serious self-condemnation on their part.
Got it. I would say that she did move almost every point from mere biology to the social sciences, i.e. how those particular male/female biological realities manifest themselves in interpersonal relationships, societal behavior, cultural traditions, etc. (Again, that’s what fascinated me the most about the video and why the “origins of the biology” would be a significant factor to me.) In any event, thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment