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.

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.

The "trans world" vs Abbott and Paxton

Regular readers know that I differentiate between transgender and transsexual, because they're not the same — and the National Institutes of Health notes sex and gender aren't the same.

Although some of it may be overstated, and the parents of a Main Street child who is either possibly transgender or transsexual aren't usually personally involved with this activism (though they are at times) they can be affected by it.

Hence, in light of my latest post about trans activism this morning, I h ave separated out the ragefest about recent comments by Gov. Abbott and AG Paxton, per items rounded up by Kuff, from the rest of this week's Texas Progressives roundup.

I don't agree with either Abbott or Paxton, but again, there is such a thing as trans activism, I don't believe in lumping transgender and transsexual together, and I don't believe in leading parents astray.

So, that said, here's those separated out items.

The Texas Signal examines Ken Paxton's grotesque crusade against trans (gender? sexual?) kids.

Amber Briggle remembers inviting Ken and Angela Paxton into her home for dinner, so they would meet and get to know her family and transgender son.

Jorgeson Pittman explains why the latest AG opinion against trans (gender? sexual?) kids is just wrong.

The Current advises you to visit GovernorAbbott.com. You won't be sorry.

==

So, is the Briggle child transgender, properly speaking, or potentially transsexual? I say "potentially" because many such children grow up to be gay and lesbian, non-intervention adults. Are they already being encouraged to use puberty blockers? If for a transgender not transsexual child, why? If for a possible transsexual child, do they know the Mayo Clinic's protocols for when puberty blockers are indicated or not? Per my piece this morning, do they know of the side effects?  Do the Briggles know any of this themselves?

None of this justifies Abbott and Paxton pandering, which is the main thing they were doing. It certainly doesn't justify the specific claim that child abuse is involved BUT? Everything I've written in the paragraph above and in the intro is true.

I'm not a "twosider" on a number of issues and this is certainly one. Per that Mayo Clinic link, and other items, including their getting details of reproductive biology flat wrong, I'm not a gender-critical radical feminist, and don't agree with them to a fair degree. So, contra The Current, I myself invite you to stop being a twosider. You really won't be sorry.

Trans activists face internal challenges over puberty blockers, surgery for minors

First, a friendly reminder, as I blogged last month, that sex is NOT gender and that the National Institutes of Health says so.

Now, the actual story.

Two British doctors, both transsexuals themselves (sic on the word, as sex is not gender!), Dr. Marci Bowers and child psychologist Erica Anderson, both say that puberty blockers are overprescribed for minors and that surgical procedures, ditto, as first stated on Bari Weiss' Substack and then reported by the Daily Mail.

First, Bowers:

'We zig and then we zag, and I think maybe we zigged a little too far to the left in some cases. 

I think there was naivete on the part of pediatric endocrinologists who were proponents of early [puberty] blockage thinking that just this magic can happen, that surgeons can do anything.' 

She said that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) could be intolerant of dissenting opinions. 

'There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn't absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there's no room for dissent,' Bowers said.

Tribalism is a biatch, is it not?

Now, I've warned the Dialogue not Expulsion group of current and former Greens about "the company you keep." Ordinarily, I wouldn't reference the Daily Mail and Bari Weiss.

But, mainstream media left no choice, according to Anderson:

Anderson said that she had submitted an op ed to The New York Times warning about the risks of treatments, and the paper turned it down because the story was 'outside our coverage priorities right now.'

There you are. Oh, and I know that's a piece of crap, whether it comes from High Country News years ago with refusing to run the likes of Jim Styles, or the NYT now refusing to run this. You DEFINE what your coverage priorities are, and in the large sense of the word, this is a political decision, Kathleen Kingsbury.

It's even higher-grade bullshit because, per Weiss' piece, guest-authored by Abigail Shrier, Bowers is scheduled to take over leadership of WPATH next year. "Trans activism" and state laws on transsexual issues have been all over media coverage earlier this year, to boot.

The Substack gets into other issues beyond the Daily Mail summary, too. Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, a Dutch psychologist who first latched onto puberty blockers, has also gotten skeptical about their side effects.

I know Mayo Clinic guidelines for when and when not to use puberty blockers AND to not use them in the absence of counseling at the same time, as I told one trans advocate on Twitter last week. (That said, per the Substack, the Mayo Clinic apparently does not note all the physiological problems they may cause.

The pair also noted one other thing I already knew, at that same link above: About 70 percent of juveniles reporting gender dysphoria outgrow it. That said, many outgrow it by realizing they're gays and lesbians of their biological birth sex. And, in some cases, entertaining the idea of being transsexual, for teenage boys especially, may be safer at home than accepting being gay. We're still there, folks.

And, while I don't totally like being even briefer fellow travelers with wingnuts, when the mainstream media offers no option, to riff on an old Texas cliche, I'll dance with who's gonna brung me.

Sex is not gender; the National Institutes of Health says so

It's not just gender-critical radical feminists saying that.

It's not just them plus me saying that.

(When I do say it, I use an analogy that leftists should understand and good ones should accept:

"Sex is not gender, like anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.")

Rather, that's the official statement of the National Institutes of Health. (I found that via this piece about sex (NOT gender) differences in COVID morbidity and severity.)

And, the full thing deserves quoting, and shall get it.

"Sex" refers to biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles. "Gender" refers to socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and over time. All individuals act in many ways that fulfill the gender expectations of their society. With continuous interaction between sex and gender, health is determined by both biology and the expression of gender.

That's all that needs to be said. That's all that CAN be said.

Anything further would gainsay that.

Well, no, nothing further about that definition could add to it.

But how it plays out? There's more to be said.

The bottom line of that "more" is simple.

"STFU, so-called trans activists." By this, I'm not referring to parents of children who may have sexual dysphoria. However, I do hope those parents know guidelines for when to use, or NOT use, puberty blockers, the risks that come with them and more.

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 in that these medications, from what we already now, likely DO have some long-term effects. 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 enamel and joint issues are listed.

Dealing with the needs of actual transsexuals has become difficult for people who accept their needs and don't reject them, because of the blatant selfishness of transgender people who think wearing a dress while you have male genitalia and have no plans for sexual transitioning, nor any desire for it, entitle you to special treatment.

Oh, and because sex is not gender, I do distinguish between "transsexual" and "transgender." I'm not a gender-critical radical feminist, but there are others like me, on the left hand of the political spectrum, who make the same distinction even though we're not GCRFs.

It IS called "science."

 

Oh, there's also quite likely multiple "varieties" of transsexualism.

Georgia Green Party disaccredited; I am more "not a Green"

I posted originally a "just the facts" of the vote followed by some analysis on Independent Political Report. It's got two comments as of yesterday, one from Jonah Thomas, and one anti-Andrea Merida Cuellar one.

So, here's the numbers. 

Here's some final adieus to the Green Party from (so far) Hugh Esco, Jimmy Cooper and Denice Traina.

 

As I've previously noted, I've gradually grown more and more disenchanted with the GaGP and allies over the past few months. I still agree with parts of their message, mainly parts that I have held on my own since becoming involved with this situation. Other parts of their message, and their background, which were partially or incompletely visible to me in some cases at the start, and in others, not at all, I partially disagree with, or even reject totally. A biggie? If the Lavender Caucus et al conflate "transsexual" and "transgender," then many GaGP and allies erase "transsexual" as part of rejecting "transgender."

 

This is probably connected to gender critical radical feminism. As I said months back, I see things to like in both it and critical race theory, both of which I've actually done some reading in, though more the latter. But, I see things to dislike, too. 

Then, when many of these thought leaders saw the handwriting on the wall, they shifted to an explicitly GCRF angle and asked others to sign on. I said no way and explained why.

Finally, I offered my Solomonic angle: Expel both the Georgia Green Party AND the Lavender Caucus (and allies of both). Of course, that's never happening, and since I'm no longer a Green, it's little skin off my back.

The Green Party was crumbling already in 2016, per Mark Lause. Howie Hawkins' suck-up to Xi Jinping in 2020 was the last straw and I wouldn't vote for him. (I wish that, as a "marker" if nothing else, I had voted Mimi Soltysik of the SPUSA in 2016.)

The party has crumbled more now, tolerating threats of violence by the likes of Mike Gamms and allies against GCRFs. These people are despicable.

But, there's no way I would ally with an alt-Green party that contained the expellees. Besides the erasure of transsexuals, there's intellectual dishonesty, ignorance or both galore. Claiming the GP bylaws require this decision to have been made at a national convention is simply untrue. Hugh Esco's apparent claim of approval of the Women's Declaration of Sex-Based Rights shows lack of openness to his state party. (And, that's an issue he never tried to dispute with the Accreditation Committee or National Committee.) Per what Lause once said about Bob Fitrakis and Ohio Greens, I get the feeling that Georgia was also a paper party, or close to it. 

Also, per the farewell link, that's just a sampling of conspiracy thinking involved here. Much of the conspiracy thinking even goes beyond the issues at hand.

At the same time, while I think much of the "purge" talk is conspiracy thinking, Greens like William Nogueras are determined to prove me wrong.

So, what am I? I don't know. I've heard the SPUSA is struggling over this same issue. (David Keil is connected to it as well as is [was] to the GP.) Plus, Hawkins was its nominee, as well as Greens', in 2020. (I've called more than once for the SPUSA not to select its candidate a year in advance.)

Right now, I am what I say at the top of this blog: An independent leftist. Movement for a People's Party is amorphous, may be nothing further left than DSA roseys, and already has definite teething troubles. I'm not a Marxist or Communist, whether originalist-textualist Leninist, Trot, Tankie, or Maoist. That I know for sure. 

And, I'm definitely not an Adolph Reed Marxist who votes Dem. Blech.

At the national level, I'll view politics as, more and more, being entertainment, then heartbreak.

As for the core issue? I'll continue to maintain the actually science-informed point of view, versus the wrongs of both the GaGP and the LC et al, that I held before getting involved with this issue.

==

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.

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. 

A transsexual male weighs in from the influencer world

Thomas McBee, a transsexual (my blog, my language, McBee) male weighs in from the NYT opinion pages.

He has a number of words for the gender critical radical feminists, self-identifying as a former "queer feminist."

He also rejects the "born in the wrong body" phrase as dehumanizing. From what I've talked about the fraughtness of human reproductive fetal biology development, and how sexual identity fraughtness (male/female) parallels that of sexual relationship identity fraughtness (gay/straight), I'd say it's probably less than fully accurate as well as dehumanizing. I think that's part of his take, too.

That portion of his column I thought was pretty good. His own take, that it's "wrong," at least if people understand that in a moral sense, or, that's my understanding of his angle, is certainly correct. At the same time, when "we," or certainly when I, want some descriptive language, what do we use besides "fraughtness"? Because, it's not "normal." No, I'm not going to put that in scare quotes. It's not normal. But, at the same time, I'm not going to use a word that's the opposite of normal that could be seen as pejorative.

In terms of evolutionary biology, fetal development of an individual fetus that eliminates its reproductive ability as an adult is not normal. That's true above all for a physical limitation, but along the lines of my repeated discussion in the past about psychological constraints on "free will," which I do put in scare quotes because, in traditional terms, neither it nor "determinism" exist, it's also true for psychological constraints on reproduction as an adult.

He rejects claims that there's a "trans activist movement" to recruit people, though. That said, he ignores more and more states letting kids as young as 13 get on puberty blockers. He ignores more and more doctors ignoring the Mayo Clinic and not requiring counseling at the same time as these blockers are administered. And, he ignores activists pushing for other states to have similar rules and other activism.

I did Tweet him, and while I wasn't rude, and while I didn't use the word "transsexual," I DID use "sex-dysphoric" rather than "gender-dysphoric." Period. My Twitter, my language.

Sorry, I can't sign that: Avoiding both horns of a twosiderism faux-dilemma within the Green Party

As the likely deaccreditation of the Georgia Green Party draws nearer, a number of its members and supporters, mainly members of the Dialogue Not Expulsion Caucus, have now launched an Emergency Committee to Save the Green Party, complete with seeking signatures.

They won't get mine.

(And, update, June 20: With a vote to wrap up tomorrow on the exact language re a deaccreditation request to send to the National Committee, we will probably be at the finish line on this issue, at least as it plays out within the Green Party, by the end of this month.

And, second update, July 29: With more information and playout, I now say a pox on both your houses.)

The main reason?

I've said repeatedly that people like the Party's National Lavender Caucus, not people like me, conflate sex and gender, and this is why I use the word "transsexual," which is not pejorative when describing sexual changes or transitions. I have said that they, instead, are the conflators.

The Emergency Committee, on the other hand? Appears to ignore the idea of sexual transitioning, period. And, I can't and won't sign off on that, either.

It's part of a growing number of issues that I see as problematic on the "other" side of an issue where, more and more, I can't be on either side.

Bad sex essentialism, problem 1

A related problematic example?

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.

Fetal development, problem 2

Beyond that, it ignores the fraughtness of sexual gestation and development of fetuses, which I've written about, in one of my all-time top 10 blog posts, about how conjoined twins, and even more, teratomas and chimeras, show just how fraught in non-sexual ways human reproduction is. Given that "sexual nonalignment" happens for reasons similar to gay-lesbian orientation starting in utero, the "Emergency Committee" and the gender critical radical feminism behind its thought, appears to aspire to a Platonic ideal of what the male and female sexes are. Regular readers here, and even more of my philosophy blog, should know I hate at least the worst parts of Platonic idealism at least half as much as I hate twosiderism and tribalism.

Related? While deploring sexual reassignment surgery for minors, it simply ignores adult sexual reassignment surgery. And, ignores that willing, informed, self-knowledgable adults would go through not only the psychological pain of gays and lesbians when they "come out" but the physical pains of transition surgery. On this count, lesbian women of a GCRF pitch who ignore the reality of transsexualism are puzzling at least. 

Or narrow-minded. Or something. The idea that willing, informed, self-knowledgable adults would undergo surgical procedures to "escape the patriarchy" if they're men transitioning to women is, at a minimum, narrow-minded. Trying to twist GCRF thoughts into explaining women surgically transitioning into men is even more warped. And?

Conspiracy thinking, problem 3

And? Then there's this dive into conspiracy thinking:

We suspect that this bizarre trend, with its links to powerful billionaires and Big Pharma, is part of a corporate driven neo-COINTELPRO operation specifically designed, as it was in the sixties and seventies, to disrupt even our Green Party’s relatively weak challenge to the corporate agenda killing our democracy and our planet. We do not make this accusation against any individual, but rather gender ideology itself. Whether or not government forces are directly involved in sowing these divisions, the impact on our Party is just as deadly.

Nope. Can't do that. I have noted myself that big corporations have been willing to follow in the train of "trans awareness" for marketing $$, but this is over the top. That said, it's NOT that surprising for the statement to BE over the top like this, to be honest. (I can't say more, and as needed elsewhere, will note that again. I have had some involvement with the Dialogue not Expulsion group, and honor the confidentiality. At the same time, I have become less and less active in commenting on its email list.)

It also ignores that many rich philanthropists see evidence that transsexuals have faced an inordinately high level of abuse and want to rectify that.

(This sets aside other, non-GCRF conspiracy thinking, like the claim that expelling Alaska Greens, and threatening the same to Rhode Island before it voluntarily left the GP, for totally reasonable causes — not supporting the 2020 presidential nominee — were in reality a setting up of dominoes with an ultimate focus on the Georgia GP.)

In bed with wingnuts and possible antisemitism, problem 4

AND, there remains the issue that too, too many of the backers of DnE, and now this, are too willing to jump into bed with rank wingnuts — many of whom, if men, will remain sexist on women's issues and above all on reproductive choice issues.

Worse yet, some of the anti-transgender writers, even if not wingnuts themselves, will willingly write for wingnut magazines and websites. The much-touted Jennifer Bilek has written for sites like The Federalist? Result? She gets approvingly cited in openly racialist places like The National Vanguard, being cited because she allegedly gives credence to trans activitism being a Jewish plot. And, I googled, and see that her alleged antisemitism has been heavily discussed. See here and here. Let's put it this way: Bilek seems to walk, talk and quack that way; given who she's written for, I'm not inclined to be more charitable than that.

Beyond at least flirting with anti-Semitism, her infamous Federalist piece also comes off as anti-gay, as does this at her blog. Bilek also links to sex-essentialist material that is either ignorant of, or willfully obscurantist about, the realities of fetal sexual development. (Oh, that Center for Bioethics and Culture Network at that link tilts conservative Christian in it's "why" on its stances, talking about and against "exploitation" of egg donors, and outside reproductive issues entirely, apparently opposing physician-assisted suicide.

(I also love slapping "Big" in front of anything; it's become like putting "-gate" at the end of something. And, I doubt you were "deplatformed" back in 2013. First, per Google Trends, "transgender" didn't become a popular search term on Tricolor Satan until 2015. Admittedly, as GT allows differentiation (but I don't know the basis for it) transgender as a search topic ran somewhat hotter before that. And, "deplatform" as a search term basically didn't even exist until 2018. Per Wiki's entry, and my memory, it didn't take off as an action until a year before that, though the word goes back to the 1990s.

I disagree that gender critical radical feminism as a whole is antisemitic. That said, I wonder if Jewish supporters of the GaGP know much about some of the "supporters" their leaders invoke. And, for those who know complaints about Bilek, where are the disavowals.

As I have said before, sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is not only not a friend, they're not even a temporary ally. They're just the enemy of my enemy, period. I've mentioned this before. I've mentioned that Glenn Greenwald is not a leftist, too. Crickets, by and large. (I can't say more.)

And, in addition, claims have been raised by some trans activists and some of their supporters about how far to the right some of the DnE Caucus leaders may be. I also can't accept the sex essentialism described above.

In addition, some of the GCRF types within Dialogue not Expulsion may want to take this movement in an explicitly GCRF direction. Nope. Sign me off, not on, with that as well. (Update, Feb. 14, 2022: That appears to be more and more the case.)

Handwaving, problem 5

Also, some of them, and Bilek, just like some of the Jesse Ventura cultists, spout this "neither left nor right" stance. Again, with your allies (not mine), that's NOT true. They're wingnut rightists. Also, I moved beyond the Democratic Party in part seeing the Greens as a left party. And, I think both you and the Jesse cultists know that you're palling around with wingnuts, in this case, or libertarian-conservative types with them, and so this "neither left nor right" is a form of handwaving.

I think some of these people actually are rightists of some sort and know it. And, yes, one can be an environmentalist and a rightist. The "völkish" movement in pre-World War I Germany that spawned some later Nazi leaders is a good example of that. So are some Nazis.

Again, not all are that way, certainly not all in the original Dialogue not Expulsion group, and not even all within the "Emergency Committee" group. But? After Fernando Mercado made the claim, via Independent Political Report, that most of them were? I did look up a few. Hugh Esco's Twitter, apparently now deleted, was disconcerting at times. (Why would you delete it if it wasn't?) And, since a denouement appears to be approaching, I have blocked both him and Kerri Bruss and Paula Densnow on Facebook.

Twosiderism, problem 6, from BOTH the Emergency Committee AND the Lavender Caucus

It's the twosiderism behind all of this that leads to bad logic, that presents its side as the only possible option to the other side and more. Within that, with some, this same twosiderism leads to specifically antiempirical stances in some cases and bad Platonic philosophy in others.

So, no, can't sign. Won't sign. Will start further dissociating myself. I think I'm not alone in this stance, but that's all I can say.

At the same time, trans activists, remember that I've already said many of you don't even know the standards for when to use puberty blockers on minors, per places like the Mayo Clinic. Some of you probably don't care. And, some of you, like the person named Margaret Elisabeth, not only probably don't care, but the issue isn't important to them except as a tool. 

Your own twosiderism leads to bad logic, to bad philosophy in the case of willful linguistic conflations and demarcation problems, and your own antiempirical stances. Speaking of?

Related to the Mayo Clinic's counseling guidelines to go with prescribing puberty blockers, usually honored in the breach? This Catholic high school student who FINALLY, 63 years late, got his varsity letter jacket. Openly gay. But, among Tom Ammiano's first reactions to his sexual orientation difference was to?  

Put on a dress. Thank doorknob nobody could give him puberty blockers, let alone suggest a knife, decades ago. 

That said, some studies have shown that the majority to great majority of kids like Tom, if treated with "watchful waiting," grow up to be gay or lesbian adults of the same sex as which they were born with.

Finally, I think both "side A" and "side B" are both not fully honest in their desire for dialogue, or "dialogue," only on their own terms. In short, many members of both team A and B look like they've got winner-take-all stances.

While there are some DnE supporters (or former supporters? including if I'm officially becoming "former" and beyond that, I can't say more) who aren't winner-take-all people, I don't see anybody in the Lavender Caucus presenting that way.

Per Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof"? "We" have got the disease from the Lavender Caucus. The Emergency Committee doesn't have the cure, though. It's not even as close as the metaphorical equivalent of bleeding with leeches. 

June 20: I don't know if DnE founders planned to pivot to an explicitly GCRF stance when it became apparent they would lose the GaGP fight, but, that's what they're doing. And, for original DnE backers like me who aren't GCRF, they're losing us, and I don't think they care. I'm not sure all if them even get it, but, I don't think they care, if they do get this.

Final note? I've mentioned this, before, too, but in the early 2000s, the Dallas Morning News ran a "where are they now" piece about Dallas-area civil rights activists of the 1960s and 1970s. If I remember rightly, about half had dropped out of politics, at least electoral politics. That's basically where I'm at. I know both duopoly parties like that; many of those activists hadn't considered the GP, I'm sure, but, I've been becoming more and more detached in some ways for five years.

No, final final note: Many of the things that the Emergency Committee wants, such as more emphasis on the "Ten Key Values," ignore that, as reported here (and I think mentioned by one of their people) the Ten Ken Values were drafted as guidelines only, AND, as I and others have noted, too much emphasis on decentralization has led to many of the GP's problems. It's arguable that the Green Party has needed rescuing from disorganization and AccommoGreens since 2004.

===

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.

 

==

 

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.