The word is not "trans" — you're missing a modified noun at the end

The story of a formerly (sic) transgender (sic, we don't use just "trans" here) person stuck in legal ID document limbo — in fair part because of a ruling by Texas AG Ken Paxton that has since been extended has several caveats — and not just for the BlueAnon (and beyond among actual leftists) crowd on this issue.

First, of course, is that sex is not gender, something I've said a gazillion times.

Don't believe me? Philosopher friend Massimo Pigliucci, holder of dual PhDs, in philosophy and evolutionary biology, has taken on fellow philosophers on this issue.

Second, per, or rather, contra, Texas Monthly's first story on the plight of Razavi, this is why we don't use the bare prefix "trans" without either the "-sexual" or "-gender" at the end.

Third, the actual story of Razavi in the TM second link? Obviously, "detransitioning" is a lot more difficult, and tougher, biologically and even sociologically, on the matter of sex than gender. Related, if Razavi thinks that being transgendered would always leave him as a "second class citizen," and notes in both stories that he's 6-5 with a beard .... why did he want to and try to play a different gender role in the first place?

Auntie Tranny Dannie vs Tea-Sipper Libruls

Kuffner's type of people are why Democraps are still behind the curve on culture war battles. Kuff's friend "Ginger in Dallas" does a weekly blog spot for Kuff. Last week, she had this to say at the end:

Last, but not least, a story that made me laugh: somebody put up stickers in the stalls at DFW about so-called electronic genital verification by our only Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick, notorious worrier about trans folks. Reddit has a photo. The phone number to call on the sticker is Dan Patrick’s office. This is not a nice prank, but Dan Patrick’s war on trans kids isn’t nice either.

Setting aside the fact that I don't know — and that Dan Patrick aka Danny Goeb and Ginger both don't and won't make clear — whether we're talking about transgender or transsexual kids, in part because both of the two sides of a non-twosider issue have a vested interest in obscuring fuzzing that, that's why Democrats are behind the curve on the culture wars battle. "This is not a nice prank" is such a boo-hoo, pinky lifted from cup, Libruls from Tea-Sipper Land statement.

Back to the issue at real hand. This non-twosider knows sex is not gender — as does the Biden-era National Institutes of Health — and on would-be sexually transitioning juveniles, knows what the Mayo Clinic says. More here. I doubt Ginger does. 

Note: This is not to say that both transgender and transsexual people don't have certain legal and civil rights. They do. That said, they may not always be the same.

Edit: I'm not alone by any means. Read the thoughts of dual-PhD Massimo Pigliucci (evolutionary biology and philosophy) on this issue, on Part 1 and Part 2 of his Substack.

Per Part 1, I noted:

Big kudos to Massimo for wading into this issue — JUST biological sex, as an “eliminative” position on this issue leads to other issues, like sex-gender entanglement, and that’s the right phraseology as I see it. On the issue of how sex is not gender, I’m very much in agreement with the likes of him and the late Frans de Waal. I’m also in agreement with him that this does not preclude civil or legal rights for transgendering or transsexual individuals. (I presume Massimo separates the two.)

With a follow-up:

Indeed. And, on this issue, I’ve read what the Mayo Clinic says about when Lupron and generic equivalent is indicated AND contraindicated for minors, and other issues. Like possible overuse of antidepressants (cue old friend John Horgan!), we have real medical issues involved. On the political side, as a third-party voter, I’ve seen this cause even more turmoil in the Green Party than with Democrats.

There's that.

Part 2 has some philosophers doubling down on wrongness. On it, I noted:

Cloning does NOT eliminate biological sex! Per Massimo, philosophers who think or claim it does need to stop writing about evolutionary biology. (I’ve seen New Mexico whiptails and other lizards that — at TIMES — reproduce clonally. It’s a selective, evolutionary driven reproductive strategy that, as i know Massimo knows, isn’t always used.)

Indeed. (Cloning, while more commonly used either in the laboratory or to reference plants, is an acceptable definition for "asexual reproduction." On the "selective" issue? Within the various classes of animals, it's only in reptiles, and I presume, amphibians, and birds.)

Massimo deals further with that, in detail of his Part 2:

Last time we began a discussion of a recent paper in the philosophy of biology, authored by Aja Watkins and Marina DiMarco, suggesting that it would be better for biologists to do away with the notion of sex.

Part of their argument was that there are exceptions in the biological world, species for which the concept of sex seems problematic. For instance: “In some shark species, many reptiles, and some birds, egg-producing individuals can reproduce asexually via parthenogenesis. New Mexico whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis neomexicanus) now only reproduce this way; there are no remaining ‘males.’” (p. 5)

The implication seems to be that these cases are somehow problematic for the gametic view of sex. They aren’t. There are species of birds who have lost the ability to fly (e.g., penguins), which doesn’t negate the broad generalization that birds, usually, are flying vertebrates. Again, in biology exceptions are understood from an evolutionary perspective, within general frameworks provided by concepts like “sex,” “species,” “flying vertebrates,” and so forth.

It paywalls shortly after that, but all of Part 1 is open to the public. 

The idea is that we should take an "eliminative" view of what sex is, and Massimo is showing in detail that's wrong.

NAIA rules on transsexual athletes

I'm not sure that the NAIA's ban on post-hormone supplementation transsexual (transgender?) athletes is totally wrong, to put it mildly. I am sure that sex and gender aren't the same thing, and that the AP doesn't know the difference. And, yes, I also know that many NAIA schools are not only private but religious. I also still know the difference between sex and gender. I ALSO also know that both transsexuals and transgendered have certain general human rights and certain legal rights in particular. I ALSO ALSO know that, stereotyped scenarios aside, those rights aren't necessarily the same.

And, per all of the above, that's why the header says "transsexual." I know that among people biologically born women, and those biologically born men, testosterone levels can show major variation. I ALSO know that in many sports, there's rules against steroids and roiding.

That might be the easier answer for the NAIA and would circumvent Title IX. Just set rules against testosterone supplementation, period. Now, it would surely be harder to test than for steroids, given what I said above. Impossible? No.

Texas Progressives talk Paxton, Palestine, more

Off the Kuff writes about the Supreme Court of Texas hearing the appeal on the gender affirming care ban and putting a temporary pause on Ken Paxton's depositions.  

SocraticGadfly looked at Drew Springer's open letter to Dan Patrick asking about reopening Ken Paxton's impeachment and dropped some heavy snark.

UT is joining other major universities in trying to gag students supportive of Palestine. And, again, even though this is something inside Texas, because it's A. Foreign policy tied and B. Gives national Blue Anon like Biden a black eye, the likes of Kuff won't talk about it.

Multiple sites, like this, have recent polls citing a certain subset of Republicans saying they won't vote for Trump if he's convicted. 

Per Mike Elk, the Teamsters' long, off-and-on history of playing footsie with Republicans appears to be making a comeback.

Biden takes a powder on a pre-Super Bowl interview with host broadcaster CBS. 

At the Monthly, Chris Hooks talks about Abbott and Paxton coming up empty in the special election to replace Bryan Slaton.

The Guardian details how CNN makes the decision at the top of its corporate food chain to publish all its stories about all things Israel with a Zionist hasbara slant. It also notes that this should not be a surprise as editor in chief and CEO Mark Thompson was accused — with good evidence— of similar kowtowing to Israel when he was at the Beeb.

Joe Bien gcut off aid to Palestine via the UNRWA based on a lie — and, even more, probably knew it was a lie at the time. Think about it, BlueAnon.

Read all the environmental-related lies Tesla has told the state of California, as well as how often Cal state officials willingly swallowed them.

Neil at Houston Democracy Project said Councilman Mario Castillo asked the right questions about John Whitmire's autocratic behavior regarding Houston Ave. safety improvements.  

OutSmart lists ten LGBTQ+ candidates on the Democratic primary ballot in Harris County.  

Deece Eckstein speculates on the cause of Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome. 

The Austin Chronicle picks apart Ken Paxton's war on marijuana decriminalization.  

Deceleration argues that Greg Abbott's belligerence on the border is intended to cover up his own culpability in the climate crisis that helps fuel the migrant surges. 

Trans-itory Ohio candidate thoughts

I do NOT think that Ohio transgender (we don't use those object-free prefix "trans" here) or transsexual candidates getting knocked off the ballot for not revealing a name change of less than 5 years ago have a 14th Amendment case.

Tis true that the law has a marriage exception. But, by silence in MSM reporting, tis also apparently true that it does not have other exceptions. And the lack of these other exceptions would knock the pins out from under a 14th Amendment case.

The biggie is that, to reverse the marriage issue, it does not have a divorce exception.

Second is the question of the law's intent. It was passed in 1995, when issues over transsexualism were but a small blip on the country's political and social radar screen and transgenderism wasn't even that.

Third? Ignorance of a law is never an excuse. Sorry, Arienne Childrey and Vanessa Joy, but dem's da bees.

Tex-ass interference with personal lives continues

Multiple issues to that end popped up last week. Here's a few highlights, primarily abortion-related.

The Guardian wonders if the Texas ex's suit against an ex-wife's friends for helping her get an abortion wlll turn into state-sponsored spousal harassment.

Judge Matthew Trump Kacsmaryk promises to give a ruling (favorable of course for his wingnut court-shopping allies, aided by the chief judge of the Northern District) as soon as possible on a preliminary injunction to knock mifepristone off the market.

And, extracted from the rest of regular Texas Progressives' roundup news, Off the Kuff wrote about that unhinged abortion pill lawsuit.

Related? The First Amendment-hating Lege is targeting sites like Plan C, which has a documentary at SXSW. The Observer interviews director Tracy Droz Tragos.

Because of the attacks on abortion, things like a D&E operation for a miscarried but not delivered fetus, already hard to find in Tex-ass a few years ago, are almost gone now. The Observer has more, including how this affects medical training in general and could leave to a doctor exodus — not at all likely in the midst of a national doctor shortage exacerbated by (natch) algorithms and placements for residencies.

Kenny Boy Paxton wants an appeals court to lift an injunction so he can again snoop on families that have transsexual or transgender kids.

Court rules for PFLAG vs Ken Paxton — non twosiderist thoughts

Kenny Boy Paxton cannot investigate any member of PFLAG after a new court ruling.

Per my non-twosider thoughts on transsexualism and transgenderism, starting with the fact that sex isn't gender and most recently with the FDA's wanting black box warnings on puberty blockers, I'm of two minds.

Paxton's "investigations" have been harrassing, and pandering to the Religious Right, but how many parents are going to a "pill pusher" (they exist and not just for puberty blockers, as antidepressants and the opiods epidemic both show), often without being fully medically informed by that doctor, and getting Lupron outside of Mayo Clinic guidelines?

At the same time, while I don't use another acronym for them because it's become pejorative, I also reject sex essentialism and other "issues" that are generally held in common by gender-critical radical feminists. And, folks, that's why I'm not a twosider on this issue. I don't always stress that I'm also not a GCRF, so it was time to say that again, too.

FDA puts black box warning on puberty blockers

I had heard about this while on vacation, and remembered to Google when I got home.

Sadly, the Daily Caller is the most read and least wingnut of the top search results from both Google and DuckDuckGo. In other words, yes, this issue IS getting a mainstream media blackout, sadly.

Given that many general practice MDs and psychiatrists were (allegedly) handing out Lupron and others like candy, despite Mayo Clinic warnings on how, when and why such medications should be used, as discussed in depth by me, and despite strong correlational evidence (remember, the correct form of the old phrase is: "Correlation does not NECESSARILY imply confirmation) of harms of Lupron, to bones, teeth and more, the media has seen fit not to cover this. (That too is at the "discussed in depth" link.)

The cerebral "pseudotumor cerebri" (which has many correlational causes) may not be life-threatening, and it may not be that common, but it shouldn't be ignored, obviously. 

The pseudotumor issue aside, I welcome the black-box warnings in general as just maybe getting parents to thing about gender and sex not being the same, to look at the whole dysphoria issue, to look at the idea of "watchful waiting," and to look at the good possibility of having kids who eventually become healthy, sex-unchanged gay and lesbian adults, the usual end result of such watchful waiting.

If one doesn't know about the Mayo Clinic guidelines, with only, by and large, wingnut media talking about this, mainstream media is indeed lamestream media on this issue and does much of America a big disservice.

UPdate, pre-publication, but post-advance writing. Maybe this story is starting to trickle out beyond wingnut media. WSFJ, the NBC affiliate in Montgomery, Alabama, recently ran something, tying it to comment by Alabama state lawmakers.

Even more interesting, outside traditional media, Gnu Atheist evolutionary biologist and blogger Jerry Coyne has an in-depth post generally favorable to this issue, and, given his scientific background, playing up all the items noted above. Part of the piece notes that some European countries, like Sweden, inventor of sexual reassignment surgery, are also reassessing transitioning issues.

Sadly, Coyne spoils the piece by citing first Bari Weiss, then telling readers that claims she is alt-right are not an excuse to not read her, then doubles down by citing racist Andrew Sullivan. (In fact, Coyne has on occasion referred to himself as a "classical liberal" or very similar, like ... you know who.) Also related to his uncritical citing of Sully, Coyne, several months ago, in talking about the accusations of racism against the just-deceased E.O. Wilson, comes off as ignorant about just how much of a racist/racialist Rushton was. In fact, he admits not even knowing who Rushton was. Given his connections to Murray and Herrnstein (tying this back to Sully!) that's, uh, interesting! 

(Sidebar: I thought I had blogged about these revelations about Ed Wilson, not just Coyne's response, but apparently not. Coyne the not-so-leftist appears to give him a pass on the original sociobiology contretemps vis-a-vis Steve Gould and Richard Lewontin. Oh, yes, now I remember ... I wrote about it in reviewing Richard Rhodes' 2-star bio of Wilson, far and away the worst book he's ever written. Of course, as P Zip Myers wrote almost a decade ago, Coyne is a dyed-in-the-wool ev psycher, which is why he gives Wilson a pass on its auntie, sociobiology.

But, along with being a Gnu, Coyne, while not a wingnut and while claiming to be a leftist, nonetheless has simplistic views on things such as cancel culture, which goes along with his simplistic adoption of determinism. This Chicago Maroon's story on him shows this simplistic mindset at play. Of course, if you're a biological determinist and one of simplistic views, it stands to reason you'll adopt philosophical determinism on matters of volition and again with simplistic views.

Since his blog ate my comments (he may have me, by that email address, on a shadowban), I Tweet-threaded him to cite some people left of center when he writes again.

Transgender, transsexual, and legal and civil rights

I've blogged before many times about the difference between sex and gender, the problems with puberty-blocker medications, their over-prescription and prescription outside of guidelines recommended by places like the Mayo Clinic and more.

I've distanced myself from the "trans activists," other than the former "activist" doctors who blew the whistle last year on some of the worst of the activism.

At the same time, I've distanced myself from the former Georgia Green Party and its right-wing allies, and whether specifically right-wing or not, some of the worst of gender-critical radical feminism.

But, I realized that I've probably never specified that, although transgenderism and transsexualism are not the same thing, because sex is not gender, that both transgender and transsexual people are entitled to certain legal rights and protections.

Those may not always be the same, between the two groups, but both are entitled to certain legal rights and protections. For instance, both have the right to privacy from both government and private snooping.

The biggest difference, re something that's been in the news off and on?

Battered women's shelters.

A former male who has sexually, by chemistry and/or surgery, transitioned to being female, has the right to enter such a facility.

A man wearing a dress and makeup who has not transitioned to female, is not in the process of doing so, and especially, has no plans to start such a process, has no such entrance rights. Not in my book.

GCRFs vs the LC: A pox on both houses within the Green Party over the Georgia Green Party; expel BOTH!

I'm not like Abe Lincoln in every way, but I do, like I see him, fashion myself as somewhat of a "cogitator," someone who gnaws for a while on a serious issue, and even after lengthy gnawing, reserves the right to update his thoughts.

This is a follow-up to my previous post on this issue, as the Georgia Green Party gets closer to deaccreditation. 

To translate the initials? As some may guess, the former is gender critical radical feminists. The LC may be more obscure, but it's the Lavender Caucus within the Green Party, which represents the LGBQTIA+ (and hey, can't "I" stand for "incel" as well as "intersex"? #Boom!)  people within the Green Party, and yes, more and more, you see a "+" at the end of the alphabet soup of the expanding list of identity groups.

Let's start right there with that word, "deaccreditation." Or "expulsion," if you will.

And, by pox on both houses? I mean exactly that. Expel or deaccredit both the Georgia Green Party AND the Lavender Caucus. This is going to be primarily about the former, not the latter, but I'll touch on both.

My personal ties will get a bit more revealed here.

When the GaGP was first facing the threat of deaccreditation, a group eventually called the "Dialog not Expulsion Caucus" was formed. I think I heard about it via an unofficial Green Party Facebook group. I eventually signed its statement.

Now, in my previous post, I noted "I can't say more," three or four times, in parentheses. To be upfront, I am a member of a private email group of DnE support statement signees. To be more upfront, I'm probably the second most active non-GCRF member, in terms of commenting. By the letter of anonymity, I can dish on whatever I have said there, and certainly whatever I think about general happenings, and as long as I don't come close to direct quotes of others, and don't mention names along with specific indirect referencing of ideas, I think I'm observing full well the spirit of anonymity as well.

In short, I'm not a spy, and didn't enter the group as a spy.

OK, I think that's all the backgrounding I need.

LC members have consistently claimed that GaGP representatives have consistently refused, brushed off, or loopholed out of offers to dialog. Given some of the nastiness within the GP's Accreditation Committee, where the deaccreditation process started, I think some of the terms for dialog by the DnE Caucus (not an official GP caucus) were legit.

I don't know if all of them were legit back then, and didn't check on every one. I have a life beyond this.

Today? With more learning? I'll bet some of them were NOT legit. Over the past couple of weeks, there's been a GCRF-driven pivot that first styled itself "The Emergency Committee to Save the Green Party." As this, and the DnE, are on websites that aren't (AFAIK) part of the "dark web," no confidentiality violations here.

I think this IS a GCRF statement. (Can't say more.)

I do think its backers, vis-a-vis the dialog notes above, don't want to dialog with non-GCRFs within Dialog not Expulsion. I personally haven't even tried. I have said I wouldn't sign that thing, and reasons are listed in my previous blog post up top.

My perception of unwillingness to dialog, and how this relates to my take on issues going back 14 months ago, has thus been updated, per my first paragraph.

With additional observations, I've updated other thought as well.

First, contra the likes of Margaret Elisabeth, Fernando Mercado and others, I've long insisted that it's the trans activists who conflate sex and gender.

Now, I'm pretty sure that it's NOT "only" them that does this. I still won't say that this is as common among GCRFs as among trans activists, and its certainly done via a different approach angle, but does that conflation exist among GCRFs as well? Yes.

At my previous post, I talked about what I called "sex essentialism." I'm going to copy part of this and expand on it.

I've seen people like this say "you're not a woman if you don't menstruate." In addition to being an attack on transsexuals, it's also fallacious within a poor version of sex essentialism.

So, female marathoners aren't women? Female survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau and other camps weren't women? 

"But that's temporary!"

OK, then females with hysterectomies aren't women? Post-menopausal females aren't women?

And, while I "get" where "The Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" is coming from, nonetheless, it at least to some degree participates in this same sex-essentialism mindset. Other parts of the site are strawmen. Is there really work on trying to give men the possibility of getting pregnant? That's not happening in 500 years, and what everyday male is asking for that anyway? AND, even if it became possible, I reject the idea that this is sex-based discrimination. This sounds like a turd-polished version of wingnuts' "barefoot and pregnant." Or Nazi Germany's "kinder, kirche, kuche" minus the middle term. (So I went Godwin's Law; sue me.) By the same logic, an attempt to let human woman have the ability for parthenogenic conception would also be sex-based discrimination. So is cloning. (There would be other good reasons, starting with medical ethics, extending to general ethics, and from there going into medical skills issues, to not do any of these, but that's a whole nother set of issues.)

And, while attacking the idea of "transgenderism," the Declaration doesn't even use the word "transsexual." GCRFs who are either clueless about, or refuse to admit the reality of, the "fraughtness" of human fetal sexual development and related issues, do the same. This is, at a minimum, a form of conflation of transgenderism and transsexualism. At a maximum, it approaches cultural genocide.

In short, whether the Declaration's drafters hearts were in the right place or not, it's a flawed document. I had only looked at the summary when I signed the DnE support, not the full thing, but even a careful look at the summary should have given me pause.

Sadly, by now, I the Declaration has become pretty much set in stone as "the" alternative to trans activism. It certainly is set in stone as the GCRF alternative.

Second, given that the Accreditation Committee's original action was what, two months ago, has there been a GCRF-based subcommittee within DnE long planning a "pivot" like this? I don't know, but it's certainly possible. 

That said, time to skewer the LC and the Accreditation Committee, which has officially drafted the document seeking the National Committee to officially deaffilate the GaGP.

And? The objections it raises are largely what the Declaration gets RIGHT, IMO. To the degree the Declaration's drafters worry about gender identity without conflating sex and gender is right, but it's the LC's first point of attack.

Second, the AC admits that the Green Party's platform statement supporting gender fluidity is nonbinding. So, they shoot themselves in the foot.

On the other hand, the AC charges that there wasn't advance notice of the meeting that ratified this becoming part of the GaGP platform, which ties back to my suspicions.

And, most damning of all, Hugh Esco, then the GaGP secretary, reportedly contacted the Women's Human Rights Campaign before the adoption of the Declaration, saying it had been adopted. That's from December 2019, and technically, is about the GaGP's Coordinating Council adopting it, while yes, the Declaration wasn't actually officially adopted until February 2020. Hugh might argue to the LC, AC, and NC that he's narrowly, technically right, but he certainly sells it to the Women's Human Rights Campaign as full adoption by the state party.

How many people were at the 2020 GaGP state convention, in turn? How many took an even more cursory look at the Declaration than my first look? How many were influenced by how Esco and allies sold it? I'll admit that I might not have fully challenged the framing.

So, in summary? The Declaration is not all wrong on transgenderism. It IS ALL WRONG, by a combo of commission and omission, on transsexualism. The same holds true for GaGP leadership and allies.

Expel them. 

But, still don't expect me to support the LC, either. Or the AC, which in that official complaint language doesn't use the word "transsexual." And, the LC and its allies, like Mike Gamms and half a dozen others I blocked on Facebook, have made terroristic threats, to put it bluntly. Their own "framing" contributed to me not looking more closely at the Declaration. And, to the degree it's all been done unrepentantly, it is part of why the LC also needs to be expelled.

The LC and AC don't want to dialog, IMO, and wouldn't even if the GaGP had started off in better faith. Per this Guardian piece, I don't think the "trans activists" want to dialog in general. 

Couple of final notes.

One, the GaGP seems to be one of the "paper" state Green parties, like Ohio was under Bob Fitrakis, as lamented by Mark Lause. It's why I've pointed out before that "decentralization," along with the other Ten Key Values, was originally drafted for suggestion only. In this, it's no different in the last 12 months than the Alaska Greens being hijacked by Jesse-stanners.

Two, on the terroristic threats, the LC and allies faithfully uphold every stereotype? generalization? that gender critical radical feminists have about trans activists. It's really still a stereotype; my "Bayesian" differentiation is that at least 50 percent of the members of a group have to live up to a "caricature" for it to be a generalization, not a stereotype. At the same time, the LC has chosen not to refute them, so, stereotypers plus fellow travelers maybe cross 50 percent and it is a generalization.

Three, had I known six months or so ago everything I know now about the Georgia Green Party and its intellectual dishonesty, I would have been less willing to sign the DnE statement. On the other hand, as I've said, it's not totally wrong, and per the paragraph above, and the paragraph with the Guardian link, I might have signed it just as part of a fuck-you to the Lavender Caucus.

Since I'm not a Green, as is, once the expulsion is official, I expect to leave the DnE email list and to become even less caring about GP issues. I've not looked at either the official FB group or the one unofficial one in more than a month.

===

Update: While "TERF" is a technically accurate alternative description, it can be a pejorative. Besides, it's a #twosiderism framing issue, as I note on Twitter, as part of a thread written in response to David B. Collins' recent post:

Calling GCRFs "TERFs" is kind of like pro-lifers calling pro-choicers "anti-life," or like pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "anti-choice." I don't do either one, partially rejecting at least the worst of #twosiderism on that issue 2/x

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 30, 2021

Per Wittgenstein and people yet more modern, it's a linguistic "game" issue.  And, I am not playing on either of the two sides who aren't the only two.

Collins is also misinformed, or more, uninformed, otherwise. Not all supporters of the GaGP, even ones more willing to accept their alliances, are gender-critical radical feminists.

Collins also doesn't mention calls for/threats of violence by the likes of Mike Gamms, and the GPUS and LC's failure to disavow them.

 

==

 

Update: The Georgia GP's website and platform were apparently full of antivaxxer info 20 years ago, and whether or not he was involved back then, the pre-decertification party chair was able to, approvingly, cite chapter and verse on its pseudoscience. 

Biden names transsexual Dr. Rachel Levine to HHS position ... And?

First, yes, my blog post headline about President Joe Biden's nomination of Dr. Rachel Levine is correct. Don't like it? I'll be blunt. On this site, on issues like this, first of all, I get the last word, not you.

As for WHY it's right?

Repeat after me:

Sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

Sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

Sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

Also repeat after me a phrase I intend to use more and more as I get older:

Period and end of story.

Period and end of story.

Period and end of story.

Gender may be in part based on biological sex, that is of course true. But, given that women's (and men's) cultural roles, whether stereotypical or not, are culturally based, that's proof No. 1 that gender is not sex.

And, this is very important for other reasons. If, like Dr. Levine, you want to go into a woman's restroom, you're fine. You're a woman, to the best that modern transitioning surgery and medications can make that so. No problem. Likewise on attending a variety of woman's functions. Ditto, if you were a much poorer version of Dr. Levine and needed to use a woman's shelter.

BUT?

If you're a man wearing a dress and makeup, but with no intention of ever sexually transitioning, or even transitioning to the degree your wallet can afford the costs, you're NOT a woman — especially if you make clear that you have no plans to transition and that cost isn't an issue, or that you would still have no plans to sexually transition if cost weren't a factor but it is right now.

That's the difference between "transsexual" and "transgender," and per philosophy of language, and sociology of language as well, it's why I'm careful on what word I use where.

Now, do I think that any agenda Biden has behind the appointment is "nefarious"? 

Unless Levine identifies as a nebulous "trans activist," and is activist, and Biden knew this, no.

I've said before in these pages that I'm not, NOT, not, a "gender-critical radical feminist." Instead, if you want to label me, I'm a "gender-skeptical non-radical feminist."

Per the above, I'm "gender-skeptical" in noting gender ain't sex. At the same time, I do note the two are intertwined. On the third hand, I reject excesses of critical theory on "gender critical," "race critical" and other things that come primarily from certain segments of academia.

On the third hand, Levine DOES appear to support UNWARRANTED medical interventions on gender-dysphoric youth. She's therefore a danger to kids, and also a violator of her Hippocratic oath.

Did I say "unwarranted"? Yes I did, and I've written before on WHY. Twice. 

To start?

Without "prods" from reading too much social media or other things, 60-90 percent of gender dysphoric adolescents stay with their birth sex — and come out as gay or lesbian.

The author, Debra Soh says:

Previous research has shown that homosexuality is associated with gender-variant behaviour in childhood. All 11 studies following gender dysphoric children over time show the same finding – if they don't transition, 60 to 90 per cent desist upon reaching puberty and grow up to be gay.

There we go.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker has similar figures, per this piece in part about him winning a wrongful termination lawsuit. (Sidebar, and an "interesting" one: Soh, as well as Zucker, is in Canada, though Zucker was born in the U.S.)

But, we can just use puberty-blockers, can't we, without physical or mental risk, even if they may not be as necessary as some "trans activists" claim?

Wrong.

I stand with the Mayo Clinic, which notes that puberty blocking medications should only be used for children who:

• Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria.
• Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty.

Note that the first stipulation has an AND, not an OR. The dysphoria must be BOTH long-lasting and intense. Note also the second stipulation. Gender dysphoria that starts after puberty should NOT be treated with these medications. And these bullet points, plus two others, including one that says a child who is a candidate for such medications should at the same time be addressing any "psychological, medical or social problems" that could interfere with such treatment.

I also stand with the Mayo Clinic, vs those who I will consider and call "child transgender manipulation activists," in that these medications, from what we already now, likely DO have some long-term effects. I've seen, and it's a public Facebook group, so no privacy violations, direct claims that such medications have no such effects. When I pointed that out, the leading advocate just "moved on" to another talking point. PBS's Frontline has more about possible long-term effects. Any major multiyear hormonal changes on a pre-adult, a child, are almost guaranteed to have some brain effects. Frontline also notes (as of the time of the piece) that use of puberty blockers for gender-dysphoric children is an off-label use.

More here.

“The bottom line is we don’t really know how sex hormones impact any adolescent’s brain development,” Dr. Lisa Simons, a pediatrician at Lurie Children’s, told FRONTLINE. “We know that there’s a lot of brain development between childhood and adulthood, but it’s not clear what’s behind that.” What’s lacking, she said, are specific studies that look at the neurocognitive effects of puberty blockers. The story also notes that there’s health risks behind transitioning hormones, and that these risks may vary based on the age at which they’re started.

Here's another piece about long-term effects for women who received Lupron for other reasons. (Leupron is the main trade name for leuproleptin, the only puberty blocker on the market.) Besides thinning bones, similar problems such as thinning tooth enamal and joint issues are listed.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported last fall that the newest British research study both found some possible mental health side effects and had ethical problems in the study itself. But, many Radically Active Transgenderism Supporters continue to claim that there's basically no problems.

Beyond that, which I had forgotten until doing a blog search, I first wrote about the willful misuse of the word "transgender" 15 years ago. For whatever reason, I didn't use "transsexual" as a blog tag before this point, though. But, that's been fixed.

At the same time, I'm not blind to politics that are involved on different sides of this issue. Some wingnuts want to deny that there is any such thing as being born to the wrong sex, and therefore reject transsexualism as well as transgenderism. On the "other" side (there's more than two sides, as this piece indicates, or should), there's a large SJW-type contingent. It's their effort to "thank" for the word "transsexual" being considered pejorative by many.

#HERO, Houston, Dallas and #schadenfreude

Austin isn't the only city in Texas that, after last night's vote, continues to offer more legal protection to transgendered people than Houston.

El Paso ranks even, or a bit better. San Antonio and Fort Worth rank higher.

And, per Lone Star Q, only slightly behind Austin?

Dallas.

Now, Austin doesn't have the infrastructure for an NCAA Final Four, or even a regional final. San Antonio does. But, only one city besides Dallas can host a Super Bowl.

And ... it's Arlington!

That said, Jethro Jerry Jones may get to have Jethroworld shine in Dallas reflective glow, and host a second Super Bowl before post-old Rice Stadium Houston hosts one.

After all, Phoenix lost a Super Bowl over the state of Arizona not having a Martin Luther King Day.

And, it's not just sports. General Electric has indicated there's no way it will move its corporate HQ to anywhere in Texas as long as we have economic nutbars representing our state in Congress. (Frankly, I partially disagree with the inside-the-Mopac state media punditry on the Export-Import Bank, but that's a sidebar.)

There's also convention business and such.

There's already been speculation about how long before Houston faces a formal boycott.

I said last night on Twitter that I would l laugh my ass off if some Dallas business leaders actually bankrolled such a boycott on the hopes that it not only steered events away from Dallas, but steered them to Houston.

Now, I've got blogging and personal friends in Houston, and like them all.

That said, this reminds me of several years ago, when I was interviewing for a newspaper position with a daily not too far away from greater Helltown.

I was asked, by the chief editor: "Are you a Houston person or a Dallas person?"

Now, I"m not a native Texan. But, I'd already lived in this state long enough that (besides laughing internally that Austin and San Antonio don't make the cut) I knew what it was about, and knew what my answer was.

I'm still a Dallas person.

A lot of native Texans call Dallas the New York City of Texas. It's meant as an insult when it's actually, of course, a compliment.

Houston? I used to (before that interview, for not quite a year) live between Houston and College Station. Never grew on me (other than the mold, perhaps). Maybe in part it was because I was "homesick" for Dallas. Anyway, Houston to me never compared to Dallas.

In reality? Houston strikes me as Los Angeles with snakes, mosquitoes and humidity. And, no, that's not a compliment, even before the failed HERO vote.

That said, unlike Indiana, when the state considered passing a bigoted "religious freedom" ordinance, I don't know how Houston business leaders could readily reverse the results of last night. I suspect many Houstonians would dig in their heels against such an effort.

For public consumption, the NFL has said for now it's not moving the 2017 Super Bowl for now, and the NCAA has said it's not moving next spring's Final Four.

Is that written in stone? No. Now the NFL had two-plus years to move the 1993 Super Bowl from Phoenix, not one-plus, but it's doable.

First, sponsoring advertisers have to be threatened with boycotts. Second, Houstonians who were pro-HERO (and actually voted?) must man the picket lines. Things go forward from there.

#BruceJenner vs. Renee Richards, the #SJW world and more

Bruce Jenner/Wikipedia

As everybody in the US not in hibernation probably knows, 1976 Olympic decathlon winner Bruce Jenner is "out" as a transgendered person.

And?

While this is interesting, is it something that necessarily needs huzzahs and handsprings? Maybe, maybe not.

"But he's famous," somebody will say, and that will publicize transgender issues.

He's famous for what?

Per a commenter on NBC Sports' Hardball Talk blog, Jenner has voluntarily been part of the Kardashian circus for more than a decade. Name me something else he's famous for, other than recently killing a person in an auto accident.

In addition, nobody forced him to go on camera. His choice. Per that commenter:

In other words, Bruce Jenner represents a tiny, all but quantum fraction of the total number of transgender patients. He only receives this much attention because (1) he is a former Olympic champion, (2) he has recently been involved in a fatal automobile accident in the media subcapital of the world, but most of all because (3) for the past umpteen years he has been a willing participant in one of the biggest self-aggrandizing, self-promoting media freak shows in history and by his own volition a darling of tabloid dumpculture. 

That might be somewhat harsh. But, is it totally so? I don't think so.

And, while transgender and sexual identity issues are confusing, Jenner seems more confused yet. To claim that he's conservative, Republican and Christian is one sign of that. Many liberally religious people don't have a problem with transgender issues, as the forth initial in the LGBT civil liberties quasi-acronym. However, Christian conservatives have plenty of problems with that. Problems enough that, as the religious right takes stronger hold of the modern GOP, it's perplexing that folks like the Log Cabin Republicans continue to identify as Republican. There are more than two parties in America, you know; you could be Libertarian. But, I guess that the largely two-party duopoly has too much of a hold on you, and you're willing to sacrifice an essential part of your personhood for the Religious Right's agenda.

And, speaking of LGBT? Jenner's claim that he has little need for its rights or it as a movement is even more perplexing. I suspect that, at some point, organized LGBT groups, if they don't abruptly dump Jenner like a hot potato, will at least slowly walk away from him. The social justice warrior types, the SJWs, may be having rapture right now, but probably should think again.

I mean, the NYT, in one article, found his political leanings more shocking than him coming "out."

That NYT piece also notes his circus show background:

This was a coming-out about gender identity and also of television genre. Mr. Jenner tried to disentangle himself from his reality show skin, shedding the slightly goofy, Father Knows Least persona he plays on E! to reveal a more forceful and assertive version of himself. He became exercised – and even sarcastic — when Ms. Sawyer told him that his Kardashian years (she only referred to the series as “that reality show”) made people wonder whether this too was a publicity stunt. “Yeah, right,” he drawled. 

 Instead, he reframed his reality show career as the price he paid to create a platform for his new calling. “Yeah, I know,” he said, referring to what Ms. Sawyer described as “a shameless selling of everything.” He said this was different. “But what I am doing is going to do some good and we’re going to change the world. I really firmly believe that,” he said shaking his finger at Ms. Sawyer. He added, “And if the whole Kardashian show and reality television gave me that foothold into that world, to be able to go out there and really do something good, I’m all for it. I got no problem with that. Understand?” 

 His reality show days aren’t over, however. Mr. Jenner said he was doing an eight-episode documentary with E! that will air this summer but said he drew the line at giving the camera the kind of access he allowed on “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” 

As for that conservative Republican part?

Mr. Jenner described himself as conservative and Ms. Sawyer seemed taken aback. When she asked him if he would ask Republican leaders to champion the transgender cause, Mr. Jenner was full of aplomb. “I would do that, yeah, in a heartbeat, why not? And I think they’d be very receptive to it.”

Yeah, right. You’re either a full-on idiot, totally clueless, or else think you can tame the Religious Right GOP circus just like a Kardashian circus.

And, that’s another reason not to put him on any platforms.

After all, Christine Jorgensen went public with this 60-plus years ago! Renée Richards went public as an athlete still in competition 40 years ago. Both did so less voluntarily than Jenner, but with more aplomb, perhaps; certainly, remembering Richards, she did so without the apparent publicity-seeking of Jenner. So, while Christina Kahrl is partially right to salute Jenner, she shouldn't be going overboard, either. 

As for Kahrl entering the social justice warrior world by chiding Jenner's mom for saying "he" and "him," the New York Times used male pronouns for its story, and offered what was to me a reasonable editorial defense, noting that Jenner had not chosen a female name nor set out for public understanding other parameters of his identity transitioning. And, it would be bad enough to chide other media outlets; selecting Jenner's mom as the object lesson for a "teachable moment" is kind of sad, in my book.

Jenner's second ex also uses male pronouns in writing for Huff Post. She notes that he had started the transitioning before they divorced. That said, he went on to marry Kris Kardashian, not go further down the transitioning road, and join their media circus.

So, shake your finger at Diane Sawyer, or me, or others, all you want, Bruce. I don't believe you're going to convert a bunch of Republicans. I'm not shocked, or even surprised, that you may go back to reality TV as a "pulpit," or a "slimepit." Please, don't push yourself as America's role model for this. 

Meanwhile, this is further proof that there's no omnipotent god or Intelligent Designer behind this world in general or human procreation in particular. Beyond gender identity issues, sexuality also goes haywire during fetal development, due to hormone insensitivity issues or other things. And, we haven't even discussed things like teratomas, as blogged about by me before, or mosaicism, or even the 25-35 percent of human conceptions that are spontaneously aborted due to various abnormalities. As Francisco Ayala, a nominal Catholic and world-class biologist has said, if God's the Intelligent Designer, he's also the Great Abortionist.

Any would-be commenters who mention "original sin" get their would-be comments deleted. (And, yes, like Ken Ham, some Xns actually will attribute the cause of anything wrong in our world to original sin.)

Transgender and marriage

As more and more states approve gay marriage, Jennifer Finley Boylan, a marriage male-to-female transgender, has some very interesting food for thought.