In what seems to be a desperate attempt to drum up some support from the UK populace, most of whom think that anyone born with a swingy thing down under is most assuredly not a woman and never can be one, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, decided to state the bleedin’ obvious at the recent Tory Party Conference.
We shouldn’t get bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. That’s just common sense.
Better late than never, I suppose, Rishi - but he’s kind of woken up to the fact that a lot of British people (and particularly his traditional base of support) think that Net Zero is a load of bollocks and that women don’t have a load of bollocks.
He’s wrong, though. It isn’t “common sense” - it’s an observable truth. Remember that stuff we used to have? Science? It’s that1.
There are only two types of human - male and female - and it is (currently and for the foreseeable future) impossible for one to become the other.
It’s just indescribably bizarre that this needs to be said at all. It’s one of those “water is wet” statements.
Who would have thought that in 2023 considerable time and effort would be spent discussing whether a man is a woman? It’s not even a serious conversation, really, is it? Or it shouldn’t be.
But this is the genius of the Weird World of Woke - they get us all riled up about the most nonsensical shite imaginable. They get us talking about bollocks - literally and figuratively.
Since women are the ones most under threat from the trans tyranny, and are losing their hard-won rights and privileges at an alarming pace, I’ll focus on that side of the equation.
We’ll start with the bleedin’ obvious :
A woman is a woman
I don’t mean anyone who claims to be a woman, or who feels that they are a woman, or who self-identifies as a woman, is a woman. A woman is a woman regardless of any of these things. A woman needs to do precisely nothing to be a woman.
Let’s take a physics perspective on this.
Physics is concerned with observable quantities; things that can be measured. Maleness or femaleness is a property that can be measured. Which sex you are can be measured. No inner feeling, no claim, no process of self-identification, will change the result of a measurement of sex.
Let me state that again (in big letters) :
No inner feeling, no claim, no process of self-identification, will change the result of a measurement of sex
You cannot will yourself to have the body type associated with the production/possession of large immotile gametes2 - you either have it, or you don’t. And this body type extends right down to the cellular level - it’s not just about external characteristics.
Furthermore, we can state, that :
No behavioural change, no amount of social transitioning, no regimen of drugs, no surgery, will change the result of a measurement of sex
There’s no PoMo-inspired version of “truth”, no way of looking at this, no verbal sleight-of-hand, that will in any way affect the result of a measurement of sex. You can Butler your head off, Foucault to your heart’s content, and Queer yourself to the hilt - you ain’t gonna change that measurement result.
Similarly, you can PoMo your little cotton socks off, or indigenous knowledge the fuck out of something, and water still boils at the same temperature at a given pressure.
And boiling water is still wet.
Having thoroughly stated the bleedin’ obvious - let’s look at another such statement :
Only men can be transwomen
Of all the women ever born on this planet, not a single one, ever, was or could be a transwoman.
Being a transwoman is an exclusively male property.
A transwoman is not a woman because if one performed a measurement of sex on a transwoman, the result would be male. Your biology is, in fact, the only thing that determines whether you are a man or a woman. This is not “biological essentialism” - but a matter of empirical observation.
The problem is that the Trans Lobby has culturally appropriated the meaning of the word woman - to mean something that is independent of biology. It is critically important for their program that the meaning of what it is to be a woman is entirely divorced from biology. The split really is this stark :
Science : biology is the only thing that determines whether one is a man or a woman
Trans Activist : biology is irrelevant for determining whether one is a man or a woman
If there were to be some biological “aspect” to being a woman admitted by the Trans Lobby, then there would be a way to measure this - and transwomen would be determined to be male by such a test. This they cannot countenance - which is why the biological side of things is so vigorously attacked and deemed to be “hateful”.
This is why they fight so hard to have “gender” being seen as having primacy over sex, because in their weird little way of viewing the world, sex is irrelevant.
Women do not need validation to be a woman. Their sex requires no such thing. Men who desire to be women, or who believe themselves to be women, require such validation. This is why “mis-gendering” and pronouns are so important to them. This is why the ability to invade female spaces is so important to them. It’s all about propping up their sense of themselves3.
Woman, of course, need no such propping up. Never have done. Woman have needed to battle against male-dominated societies, not because of their gender, but because of their sex. Emmy Noether, a brilliant, brilliant mathematician, was not denied the ability to become a faculty member because of her gender, but because of her sex. David Hilbert (probably the world’s pre-eminent mathematician at the time) fought hard to get her abilities recognized and properly rewarded :
I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as privatdozent. After all, we are a university, not a bathhouse
(David Hilbert arguing the case for Emmy Noether)
One’s actual sex, not one’s pretend sex, is important. As the case of Emmy Noether shows (and it’s only one example of very many) one’s actual material biological sex has implications depending on which society one finds oneself in. The Taliban, for example, would not be Noether-friendly - and would probably make her walk around dressed like a ninja and learn how to cook for the men. These nasty cretinous relics from the Stone Age wouldn’t even let her learn maths in the first place.
There’s no way of getting round it; men are born with the down under junk and women aren’t.
And talking of down under, lesbians in Australia have just discovered they’re not allowed to organize events based upon sex-specific characteristics. Apparently, this discriminates against male lesbians according to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
It’s 2023 and so naturally I’m needing to explore my 2-spirit nature. I need a brandy followed by a stiff whiskey.
Did I really just write the phrase “male lesbian”?
Number 3,889,432 on the list of phrases I never thought I’d have to write. But here’s the preliminary judgement issued by the AHRC. See if you can make any sense of it at all :
7.41 The Commission is not persuaded it is appropriate and reasonable to:
• make distinctions between women based on their cisgender or transgender experience, or among same-sex attracted women based on the exclusivity of their same-sex attraction at an event of this kind, or
• exclude same-sex attracted women who are transgender, bisexual and queer from an event of this kind.7.42 The Commission notes that the grant of this exemption may lead to the further exclusion of and discrimination against same-sex attracted transgender women. Transgender women are a group who have and continue to experience discrimination, harassment and social exclusion.
What the fuck is a “same-sex attracted transgender woman”?
They seem to be implicitly accepting that one can change one’s sex here. After all, the correct meaning of a same-sex attracted transgender woman is a man who is attracted to men.
Which is really, really, really, relevant to a lesbian only event.
Let’s go for number 3 on our list of the bleedin’ obvious
Lesbians are not sexually attracted to men
which is number 3,889,433 on the list of phrases I never thought I’d have to write. Not because it’s wrong, or stupid, but because it’s just bleedin’ obvious. After all the very definition of the word lesbian is a woman who is sexually attracted only to other women.
To be a lesbian one must satisfy two fundamental requirements :
(a) you must be female
(b) you must be homosexual
A “transwoman lesbian” satisfies neither of these requirements.
Whilst I don’t think the whole trans movement is actually being driven by misogyny there is no doubt that it is misogynistic in effect when it comes to transwomen and women. There’s also more than just a soupçon of rampant homophobia thrown into the mix.
After having spent decades trying just to get a fair crack of the whip, women are being subjugated, yet again, to the needs of men. Not all men - just a disturbed subset of men.
It’s kind of baffling to me why some feminists, who have spent so long fighting for rights and privileges (and fairness and security) on the basis of sex, should support the trans demands so wholeheartedly when trans ideology absolutely requires the erasing of “woman” as a meaningful category.
The impact on men of all this trans malarkey is not as severe. We’ll piss anywhere, and with anyone watching, without much worry - even if our aim is good, which it usually isn’t.
I’m pissing in the wind, and I’m probably not hitting the target, but can’t we just go back to the bleedin’ obvious - it’s a better place to be than the monstrously weird hellscape that is today’s gender free-for-all.
Proper science as opposed to the garbage stuff we’ve seen associated with covid and the Klimate Krisis which is The Science™. The stuff we used to do, or at least try to do, before everything became so politically and ideologically captured.
The gamete thing is a convenient distinguishing characteristic because everything about your development from conception is centred around which of these your body is being developed for. In the normal course of events, from conception, a human being is being prepped for one of two, and only two, sexual (reproductive) roles. The difference in gametes between the sexes is just a convenient biological marker of that.
There is another potential factor at play which is that of autogynephilia. This is sexual arousal caused by thinking of oneself as a woman. This is usually dismissed as being offensive and not relevant by the Trans Lobby - but it’s a well-known thing and not all that rare. Basically, some men “get off” on thinking of themselves as women. I honestly don’t know whether any woman “gets off” on thinking of themselves as a man, but I suspect it’s a much rarer phenomenon. Even with something like pegging, which is apparently on the rise, in which a woman buggers a man using a strap-on dildo, its probably not a case of a woman “getting off” on thinking they’re a man. Dunno. Sounds like more a case of sexual lubrication than liberation, but all comments and insight welcome.
Hitting the target when pissing in the wind is all about how much pressure is behind the stream and how you swing your ding-a-ling around.
Just to be Mordred to your Arthur, I'll say this for "water is wet": what about ice? (Runs off sniggering) Nah, I get it and you're right but that kind of comeback is precisely what a well-trained Woke would emit.
Trans-ism is simply the logical end-point of feminism. Who did early feminists attack the most? Women. Especially working-class women who liked not having to have a job /and/ care for the home too. To have the man go off and earn money while she stayed at home at kept house which is a full-time job unless your of the upper crust or the bourgeoisie meant /less/ work for women in cities, not more. All the while women in the countryside still had to be able to hoist a hog under each arm, but the real countryside doesn't count for feminists neither then nor now - it's just background to their holidays.
Feminists have always hated capable independent self-sufficient and confident women the most. Remember how the women's groups of Britain treated mrs Thatcher?
Speaking of taliban and maths: I'm sure she could have learned math on the sly. How would an afghan taliban recognise any maths beyond what is required to count goats?
Eh, I'm rambling. It's easier to deal with the Woke if you see them as a) voluntarily insane and b) a cult.
All true that. And while we're on the subject of the Bleeding Obvious lets slim down on the words we need about sexuality: we need: man, woman, hermaphrodite, normal, homosexual, lesbian, sexually dysphoric. We don't need: cis-gender, gay, queer, transgender (plus a whole raft of other Newspeak designations that I can't even be bothered to commit to memory). And in my opinion we don't need heterosexual either because normal will serve the purpose fine.