Reason enough for this lifelong Democrat to never vote for my party again. This is no longer the party of JFK, Scoop Jackson, Patrick Moynihan or Bill Clinton. Trans women (aka biological men) do not belong in women’s sports because it would be an unfair competition, in women’s restrooms and locker rooms because women are entitled to privacy from men and certainly not in women’s prisons. Just like me because we are men. This is clearly a new religion. Jesus rose from the dead. A man can become a woman. Both are examples of a kind of magical thinking protected in the US by the First Amendment as is my belief as an atheist that they are religious nonsense.
Speaking of religion, I've wondered if someone with a much more academic bent than I have could trace a relationship between the beliefs of transexuals and their "allies" to the transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation debates around the Eucharist that people actually used to take seriously during the Reformation.
It's the same confused debate about something that actually doesn't actually happen (even most Christians will acknowledge this today, though the official position of the Catholic church, and some other churches, hasn't changed).
It seems really silly today, but there was a time when it was taken seriously enough that wars were fought that got entire regions of Europe devastated and significant portions of the population killed. I hope that makes people feel better about today, it turns out we've always been exactly this stupid.
An excellent point, but I think we should beware of judging our ancestors by the standards of our present scientific knowledge and philosophical understanding. The idea that something could actually "be" something quite different from what all physical observation, examination and experimentation reveal it to be *did* make some kind of sense in the framework of Aristotelian philosophy, as adopted and adapted by Thomas Aquinas and other medieval scholastics.
But Aristotelian ontology was already being displaced by other models closer to our own by at least the second half of the Reformation, and I can't think of anybody who would defend it today except in the "special case" of the Eucharist. Christian Churches who profess a belief in either trans- or consubstantiation at least frankly acknowledge that it is a matter of "faith" and "miracle", or if you prefer the term, "magical thinking", which could never in any way be "verified".
The beliefs of (some) transexuals and their allies, for example that of a trans-identified woman I read the other day who confidently asserted that after two years on testosterone "every cell of her body" was "now male", are stupider and crazier because they make claims which are almost trivially easy to falsify.
I don't think we've left some sort of vague Platonism as far behind as you think we have. It's sort of baked so far into our language that it's hard to walk away from. When we talk about abstractions, we necessarily reify them to some extent merely in order to communicate them to others. I do think this leaves the same vulnerability in our thought that allows for both transubstantiation and the most extreme forms of transgenderism. It's not the concept of transubstantiation or consubstantiation that's as dumb as extreme gender ideology. It's thinking that the difference between them is meaningful enough to matter.
Except in as much as "consubstantiation", unlike transubstantiation, seems to be philosophically faulty even in terms of its own Aristotelian/Aquinian assumptions. To the best of my knowledge, it has only ever been espoused by some Lutherans, Anglicans and a few other "conservative" (i.e. still relatively close to Catholicism) Protestants. I think it has to be seen as an (impossible?) compromise between transubstantiation and the purely symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist made by more radical Protestants.
*Perhaps* in a similar way, we can find in "trans thought" ideas which are in some sense "internally consistent" in terms of their own mindset and (mostly unacknowledged) "metaphysical framework", alongside others which are frankly self-contradictory even on their own assumptions.
But I am a linguist, not a philosopher, and do not place too much trust in my own judgment on the various issues.
I think we've reached the outer limit of my academic background, so I guess I'll concede the point to you. My understanding is that I don't even understand the difference between the two, if the body and blood of God are present (consubstantiation, as I understand it) that seems plenty damn transformative to me. The broader point is that not only was there an argument about things that demonstrably did not happen in a physical sense, and that this was deemed important enough to change policy, fight wars, etc.
I haven't voted for a Democrat OR a Republican for President in over 30 years - since neither party represents me. Clinton turned me into an Independent from a grudging Democrat. However, since that time I have tended to vote for Democrats and Third Party candidates in local elections. With this new Biden administration assault on Title IX - and its support of DEI - and its support for the overall gender-madness - I now have no real option but to work - ACTIVELY AGAINST ANY AND ALL - Democratic Party candidates - at ALL LEVELS - and at each and every opportunity I get going forward. You want to get my vote - simple - stand up for the rights of women and girls - instead of pandering to men in dresses. The Democratic Party hasn't simply - "lost my vote" - they've turned me into - "the enemy."
The promises that are made to these kids are unkeepable. Last year there was Audrey Hale, last week there was a FTM arrested in Maryland with a 170 or so page school shooting manifesto.
This is insanity, it’s complete craziness and you’re all insane if you think this is OK. I know that this is an agenda that has been an in place and ready to take over and destroy our children’s lives and the future of our country at the same time you were just waiting for something like Covid to enforce all of this BS. However, it may take years and years and years, but the parents will win this war and I hope to God that you’re defunded.
“The Supreme Court has also rejected the notion that the preferences or discomfort of some can justify otherwise unconstitutional discrimination against others.”
Me thinks that Mr. Cardona will have a reckoning very soon. As soon as MSM picks this up, I think there will be a huge backlash. He is incompetent. His department has completely fumbled FAFSA and there are many parents already calling for him to be replaced (but by who?). This ruling on Title IX will be his way to slink out of town.
The legal arguments are getting down to the nitty gritty. Thanks for writing! One gentle criticism—I wanted to post this until I got to “sex is a dumpster fire y’all.”
It raises questions about who gets to define the circumstances in which sex does not matter. The fact that in some states same sex couples are being medically classified as infertile despite no medical condition blows my mind. Sex simply matters to us humans, and in quite a few circumstances! This fundamental level disregard for human biology deserves scrutiny of Congress.
Reason enough for this lifelong Democrat to never vote for my party again. This is no longer the party of JFK, Scoop Jackson, Patrick Moynihan or Bill Clinton. Trans women (aka biological men) do not belong in women’s sports because it would be an unfair competition, in women’s restrooms and locker rooms because women are entitled to privacy from men and certainly not in women’s prisons. Just like me because we are men. This is clearly a new religion. Jesus rose from the dead. A man can become a woman. Both are examples of a kind of magical thinking protected in the US by the First Amendment as is my belief as an atheist that they are religious nonsense.
Speaking of religion, I've wondered if someone with a much more academic bent than I have could trace a relationship between the beliefs of transexuals and their "allies" to the transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation debates around the Eucharist that people actually used to take seriously during the Reformation.
It's the same confused debate about something that actually doesn't actually happen (even most Christians will acknowledge this today, though the official position of the Catholic church, and some other churches, hasn't changed).
It seems really silly today, but there was a time when it was taken seriously enough that wars were fought that got entire regions of Europe devastated and significant portions of the population killed. I hope that makes people feel better about today, it turns out we've always been exactly this stupid.
An excellent point, but I think we should beware of judging our ancestors by the standards of our present scientific knowledge and philosophical understanding. The idea that something could actually "be" something quite different from what all physical observation, examination and experimentation reveal it to be *did* make some kind of sense in the framework of Aristotelian philosophy, as adopted and adapted by Thomas Aquinas and other medieval scholastics.
But Aristotelian ontology was already being displaced by other models closer to our own by at least the second half of the Reformation, and I can't think of anybody who would defend it today except in the "special case" of the Eucharist. Christian Churches who profess a belief in either trans- or consubstantiation at least frankly acknowledge that it is a matter of "faith" and "miracle", or if you prefer the term, "magical thinking", which could never in any way be "verified".
The beliefs of (some) transexuals and their allies, for example that of a trans-identified woman I read the other day who confidently asserted that after two years on testosterone "every cell of her body" was "now male", are stupider and crazier because they make claims which are almost trivially easy to falsify.
I don't think we've left some sort of vague Platonism as far behind as you think we have. It's sort of baked so far into our language that it's hard to walk away from. When we talk about abstractions, we necessarily reify them to some extent merely in order to communicate them to others. I do think this leaves the same vulnerability in our thought that allows for both transubstantiation and the most extreme forms of transgenderism. It's not the concept of transubstantiation or consubstantiation that's as dumb as extreme gender ideology. It's thinking that the difference between them is meaningful enough to matter.
Except in as much as "consubstantiation", unlike transubstantiation, seems to be philosophically faulty even in terms of its own Aristotelian/Aquinian assumptions. To the best of my knowledge, it has only ever been espoused by some Lutherans, Anglicans and a few other "conservative" (i.e. still relatively close to Catholicism) Protestants. I think it has to be seen as an (impossible?) compromise between transubstantiation and the purely symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist made by more radical Protestants.
*Perhaps* in a similar way, we can find in "trans thought" ideas which are in some sense "internally consistent" in terms of their own mindset and (mostly unacknowledged) "metaphysical framework", alongside others which are frankly self-contradictory even on their own assumptions.
But I am a linguist, not a philosopher, and do not place too much trust in my own judgment on the various issues.
I think we've reached the outer limit of my academic background, so I guess I'll concede the point to you. My understanding is that I don't even understand the difference between the two, if the body and blood of God are present (consubstantiation, as I understand it) that seems plenty damn transformative to me. The broader point is that not only was there an argument about things that demonstrably did not happen in a physical sense, and that this was deemed important enough to change policy, fight wars, etc.
Definitely a religion, and one that is being actively written into law and proselytized in public institutions, especially to the young in schools.
I haven't voted for a Democrat OR a Republican for President in over 30 years - since neither party represents me. Clinton turned me into an Independent from a grudging Democrat. However, since that time I have tended to vote for Democrats and Third Party candidates in local elections. With this new Biden administration assault on Title IX - and its support of DEI - and its support for the overall gender-madness - I now have no real option but to work - ACTIVELY AGAINST ANY AND ALL - Democratic Party candidates - at ALL LEVELS - and at each and every opportunity I get going forward. You want to get my vote - simple - stand up for the rights of women and girls - instead of pandering to men in dresses. The Democratic Party hasn't simply - "lost my vote" - they've turned me into - "the enemy."
Grooming kids? Hell, they’re grooming the entire nation.
Thank you x100 for this breakdown of language and citations.
The promises that are made to these kids are unkeepable. Last year there was Audrey Hale, last week there was a FTM arrested in Maryland with a 170 or so page school shooting manifesto.
https://www.nbc24.com/news/nation-world/maryland-high-school-student-arrested-for-alleged-manifesto-outlining-school-shooting-plan-montgomery-county-public-school-thomas-wootton-high-school-gender-identity-baltimore-police-mental-health
This is insanity, it’s complete craziness and you’re all insane if you think this is OK. I know that this is an agenda that has been an in place and ready to take over and destroy our children’s lives and the future of our country at the same time you were just waiting for something like Covid to enforce all of this BS. However, it may take years and years and years, but the parents will win this war and I hope to God that you’re defunded.
“The Supreme Court has also rejected the notion that the preferences or discomfort of some can justify otherwise unconstitutional discrimination against others.”
Surely this cuts both ways, doesn't it?
Me thinks that Mr. Cardona will have a reckoning very soon. As soon as MSM picks this up, I think there will be a huge backlash. He is incompetent. His department has completely fumbled FAFSA and there are many parents already calling for him to be replaced (but by who?). This ruling on Title IX will be his way to slink out of town.
Except MSM is so biased they will spin truth into lies every time this issue comes up. Ask Riley Gaines.
Thanks for the explaining exactly how dishonest this text is. I am beginning to understand why revolutions are always so violent.
The legal arguments are getting down to the nitty gritty. Thanks for writing! One gentle criticism—I wanted to post this until I got to “sex is a dumpster fire y’all.”
It raises questions about who gets to define the circumstances in which sex does not matter. The fact that in some states same sex couples are being medically classified as infertile despite no medical condition blows my mind. Sex simply matters to us humans, and in quite a few circumstances! This fundamental level disregard for human biology deserves scrutiny of Congress.
Outrageous.