Thank you for this very informative article! As a former biology teacher , and a 96 year old woman, I still can’t get my head around the fact that we are arguing about such a basic concept as the binary of sex .Why has a false ideology taken such hold over biological truth? Is it another “ Extraordinary popular delusion and madness of crowds” all over again? Though it’s not by any means the belief of the majority but a tiny minority ruling the roost. To think that in the modern age we have sunk to such ridiculous cultist “ thinking” is disturbing!
I can only hope that Trump’s rational EO on this will be upheld.
Thank you for this wonderful, enjoyable and informative essay! I guess I am one of the very gender critical people who are a bit uneasy with the military ban rhetoric ("A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member"). I am just wondering if it opens the gate to reject people from the military based on their personal beliefs. Would , say, atheists be next since many consider atheist views amoral? (I still think the ban makes sense , I am just not sure about this framework)
There are all kinds of people who can't serve in the U.S. military: people with really bad eyesight; people with flat feet, or other conditions of their (lack of) health & readiness. I have no problem with trans-identified service people being excluded from service.
First, if they've medicalized (either prior to or during their term of service): their bodies are objectively impaired and less functional than non-trans bodies. Cross-sex hormones cause all kinds of havoc on their own, let alone the horrific genital surgeries. Why should their self-inflicted wounds affect their unit, or be paid for by U.S. taxpayers? I'd say the same about a woman who got DD tits on TriCare and then couldn't run fast enough to pass the basic fitness test.
Second, even if not medicalized: do you think it's fair or moral for an officer, previously known as Col. James Boe but now demanding to be called Col. Jane Boe, to demand that a subordinate service member now reply "yes ma'am" instead of "yes sir?" Do you think it's correct to demand that our service members ignore the plain sense of their own eyes and ears? Do you think the might and weight of the U.S. military should force its members to deny the truth of what they see before them? This is utterly destructive of morale or willingness to serve.
I think the real issue is that men aren't willing ever to be told NO. Women hear this all the time, and we get it that certain choices we make may preclude our ability to do other things. Female athletes know that if they have children, their athletic performance can be harmed for months or years, depending on the number of pregnancies and just plain dumb luck. Most of us recognize that our professional lives can be seriously hampered or diverted because of choices we make about our families (children, elder care, etc.) So those who choose to harm their healthy endocrine systems and genitals should understand that there's no free ride professionally for them, either.
I have no problem with trans-identified people being excluded from service either (as I said in my note). I hate trans ideology with passion, I agree with everything you say. My only worry ( not even a problem - concern) is with the wording. I was just wondering if it creates a legal precedent of excluding from service based on religious or ideological views. Maybe it doesn't . I am not a lawyer, hence I asked this question.
I don’t think it would exclude anyone because of religion or ideology alone—for me it’s mostly the medicalization, which makes people objectively sick & dependent on pharmaceutical hormones. Diabetics also can’t serve—no doubt because of their dependence on insulin.
Thanks for this take down. it was under Obama that SOGI data began to be collected at the federal level. They are attempting to put in global interoperability standards across platforms. This ushers in the model of healthcare across nations under the UN agenda 2030. The US govt has 'Healthy People 2030' that focuses on social determinants of health (SDOH) to meet goals. It is under this umbrella that SOGI lives.
I could not agree more that investigations are the way forward. I do not get the impression that many understand that the gender beast is everywhere. The legal system has been working to create a legal framework for trans for 40+ and it is a lucrative business. Generalist lawyers have much learning to do and I would question whether anyone in a private public partnership has the ability to investigate itself. Trumps tech influence are concerning without understanding the breadth of the problem.
This piece was written some time ago about how data collection is used to create industry. Since Trump took office some of the links have changed (and the Trumps notices you mention have appeared) but it is yet too early to know how this plays out. Industry has much at stake .
Thank you for this very informative article! As a former biology teacher , and a 96 year old woman, I still can’t get my head around the fact that we are arguing about such a basic concept as the binary of sex .Why has a false ideology taken such hold over biological truth? Is it another “ Extraordinary popular delusion and madness of crowds” all over again? Though it’s not by any means the belief of the majority but a tiny minority ruling the roost. To think that in the modern age we have sunk to such ridiculous cultist “ thinking” is disturbing!
I can only hope that Trump’s rational EO on this will be upheld.
Thank you for this wonderful, enjoyable and informative essay! I guess I am one of the very gender critical people who are a bit uneasy with the military ban rhetoric ("A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member"). I am just wondering if it opens the gate to reject people from the military based on their personal beliefs. Would , say, atheists be next since many consider atheist views amoral? (I still think the ban makes sense , I am just not sure about this framework)
There are all kinds of people who can't serve in the U.S. military: people with really bad eyesight; people with flat feet, or other conditions of their (lack of) health & readiness. I have no problem with trans-identified service people being excluded from service.
First, if they've medicalized (either prior to or during their term of service): their bodies are objectively impaired and less functional than non-trans bodies. Cross-sex hormones cause all kinds of havoc on their own, let alone the horrific genital surgeries. Why should their self-inflicted wounds affect their unit, or be paid for by U.S. taxpayers? I'd say the same about a woman who got DD tits on TriCare and then couldn't run fast enough to pass the basic fitness test.
Second, even if not medicalized: do you think it's fair or moral for an officer, previously known as Col. James Boe but now demanding to be called Col. Jane Boe, to demand that a subordinate service member now reply "yes ma'am" instead of "yes sir?" Do you think it's correct to demand that our service members ignore the plain sense of their own eyes and ears? Do you think the might and weight of the U.S. military should force its members to deny the truth of what they see before them? This is utterly destructive of morale or willingness to serve.
I think the real issue is that men aren't willing ever to be told NO. Women hear this all the time, and we get it that certain choices we make may preclude our ability to do other things. Female athletes know that if they have children, their athletic performance can be harmed for months or years, depending on the number of pregnancies and just plain dumb luck. Most of us recognize that our professional lives can be seriously hampered or diverted because of choices we make about our families (children, elder care, etc.) So those who choose to harm their healthy endocrine systems and genitals should understand that there's no free ride professionally for them, either.
I have no problem with trans-identified people being excluded from service either (as I said in my note). I hate trans ideology with passion, I agree with everything you say. My only worry ( not even a problem - concern) is with the wording. I was just wondering if it creates a legal precedent of excluding from service based on religious or ideological views. Maybe it doesn't . I am not a lawyer, hence I asked this question.
I don’t think it would exclude anyone because of religion or ideology alone—for me it’s mostly the medicalization, which makes people objectively sick & dependent on pharmaceutical hormones. Diabetics also can’t serve—no doubt because of their dependence on insulin.
If you don’t win a Pulitzer for this blog, I will lose all respect for the Pulitzer. 🏆💯
This is the most complete explanation I’ve seen for the impact that the gender EOs are having. I really appreciate your work!
Awesome 👌 👏 👍
I agree with you! Whether you want to listen or not! 😉🙂
Excellent piece (and I think you're right in fn1).
👍 Though I think you're wrong yourself in arguing that "gender identity is stupid!" Not that you're listening.
But you might read Kathleen Stock's Material Girls for a pretty solid defense of the concept, her whole chapter on the term in particular.
Thanks for this take down. it was under Obama that SOGI data began to be collected at the federal level. They are attempting to put in global interoperability standards across platforms. This ushers in the model of healthcare across nations under the UN agenda 2030. The US govt has 'Healthy People 2030' that focuses on social determinants of health (SDOH) to meet goals. It is under this umbrella that SOGI lives.
I could not agree more that investigations are the way forward. I do not get the impression that many understand that the gender beast is everywhere. The legal system has been working to create a legal framework for trans for 40+ and it is a lucrative business. Generalist lawyers have much learning to do and I would question whether anyone in a private public partnership has the ability to investigate itself. Trumps tech influence are concerning without understanding the breadth of the problem.
This piece was written some time ago about how data collection is used to create industry. Since Trump took office some of the links have changed (and the Trumps notices you mention have appeared) but it is yet too early to know how this plays out. Industry has much at stake .
https://margox.substack.com/p/technocratic-gender-harmony?r=1kuq0