As I mentioned here -- ICYMI -- I think you're barking up the wrong tree as you seem dogmatically, if not congenitally, incapable of even considering that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Phil apparently said, several times at least, "gender transition" which, given Phil's apparent acceptance of being a male, would seem to clearly indicate an acceptance of that fundamental dichotomy. So you -- and too many others -- apparently hear "sex transition" where Phil and others only say "gender transition" and then proceed to barking, like some demented poodles, up the wrong tree -- one apparently not even in the right forest.
You might actually try reading Genspect's Gender Framework, even a few selected sections like 1.1.3 on Gender:
Genspect: "1.1.3 ‘Gender’ is a spectrum:
Few topics have generated as much confusion in recent years as the distinction between the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ While many people use these terms interchangeably, the field of gender studies differentiates between them. Here, ‘gender’ describes the set of expected social roles, behaviors, and expressions traditionally linked to one's sex. ....
Within the medical field, what is often termed as a person’s ‘gender’ can be viewed as a rough classification based on their self-assessment of how closely their personality, preferences, and behavioral traits align with conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity."
And many more or less reputable academic sources do likewise; see:
Wikipedia: "Though the terms sex and gender have been used interchangeably since at least the fourteenth century, in contemporary academic literature they often have distinct meanings, especially when referring to people. Sex generally refers to an organism's biological sex, while gender usually refers to either social roles typically associated with the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). While in ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably, most contemporary social scientists, behavioral scientists and biologists, many legal systems and government bodies, and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO make a distinction between gender and sex."
No doubt there are a few flies in that particular "ointment", but you might at least try reading those memos, not least because they've clearly been around for some time. Though one might say the same about Genspect's magnum opus -- for example, their definitions for the sexes are hardly better than folk-biology, maybe not surprising given Colin Wright's involvement.
In addition to which, Genspect's Glossary more or less deprecates the use of "transgender" yet in their opening talks about "transgender people who share our worries about over-medicalization and the influence of queer theory".
Not at all unreasonable to see those "transgender people" -- at least the more or less rational ones like Blaire White & Debbie Hayton -- as simply "gender nonconforming", terms which both Genspect and Shannon more or less endorse. Maybe moot whether that qualifies as your "true trans" -- and sufficient to get you to put up that $million you've been talking about for years -- but seems not far off.
As for your "Illy would have the mimic count as the actual sex by way of words", I expect that that is a rather self-serving misinterpretation. Particularly given his apparent acceptance of still being a male (sex), even if he may not have a flaming clue as to what is required to qualify as such. Maybe a trait he shares with you ...
LoL. Nice to see you finally deign to respond to me.
Your "salon", your "echo chamber" of course and you get to set the rules. Though one might suggest that you set the fox in amongst the pigeons, opened the door to that topic with your suggestion of a forthcoming "article on the very inflammatory topic that’s still on all our minds". What else would that be but AGPgate?
Matt -- and too many others, like the late lamented Kat Highsmith -- are rather obstinately, not to say "pigheadedly", committed to the "idea", the cretinous dogma that sex and gender are synonymous. You and he provided something of a "target of opportunity" which I availed myself of to fire a shot across his bow.
But arguably something of a fatal flaw in much of Genspect's position that one might reasonably suggest be addressed before it swallows the whole "anti-transgender movement" -- for want of a better umbrella term --or seriously discredits much of it. Jennifer Bilek and many others are certainly making some "progress" on that score:
"Every good cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket" - Eric Hoffer
Any number of "flies" in the "ointment" that Genspect is peddling, though I think they have the higher ground, moral and scientific, at least relative to WPATH. Somewhat apropos of which, for all of Kat's many failings, she still has a number of useful insights that you were maybe a bit too quick to dismiss:
KS: "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. — Confucius, The Analects"
Much of the whole transgender clusterfuck turns on how we are going to DEFINE "male" and "female", "sex" and "gender". And it IS a matter of definition -- there are NO intrinsic meanings to "male" and "female" in particular. But some definitions are more useful and credible than others -- something that Genspect, or at least one of the authors there (Colin Wright) doesn't get or want to get. Pots and kettles -- as far as the eye can see ...
"dysfunctional" and "family" seem more or less joined at the hip -- it's a marvel that any of us wind up more or less sane as a result of our upbringing. You may have also read "Running with Scissors" which apparently elaborates on the same theme.
As for your take on that "very inflammatory topic" which I'll be looking forward to, you may wish to take a gander at Matt Osborne's latest on the "Phil Illy Incident":
Kinda think Matt is barking up the wrong tree as he seems dogmatically, if not congenitally, incapable of even considering that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Phil apparently said, several times at least, "gender transition" which, given Phil's apparent acceptance of being a male, would seem to clearly indicate an acceptance of that fundamental dichotomy. So Matt apparently hears "sex transition" where Phil and others say "gender transition" and then proceeds to barking, like a demented poodle, up the wrong tree -- one apparently not even in the right forest.
I look forward to reading your "inflammatory" take, but you may wish to consider giving some consideration to how contradictory definitions for both sex and gender are contributing to the whole transgender clusterfuck. Something of a "mission impossible" -- should you decide to undertake it ... --to impress that idea upon people -- as I know from experience -- but clearly an urgently required one.
So glad we connected. You hit me in the gut every time. That's a skill.
As I mentioned here -- ICYMI -- I think you're barking up the wrong tree as you seem dogmatically, if not congenitally, incapable of even considering that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Phil apparently said, several times at least, "gender transition" which, given Phil's apparent acceptance of being a male, would seem to clearly indicate an acceptance of that fundamental dichotomy. So you -- and too many others -- apparently hear "sex transition" where Phil and others only say "gender transition" and then proceed to barking, like some demented poodles, up the wrong tree -- one apparently not even in the right forest.
You might actually try reading Genspect's Gender Framework, even a few selected sections like 1.1.3 on Gender:
Genspect: "1.1.3 ‘Gender’ is a spectrum:
Few topics have generated as much confusion in recent years as the distinction between the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’ While many people use these terms interchangeably, the field of gender studies differentiates between them. Here, ‘gender’ describes the set of expected social roles, behaviors, and expressions traditionally linked to one's sex. ....
Within the medical field, what is often termed as a person’s ‘gender’ can be viewed as a rough classification based on their self-assessment of how closely their personality, preferences, and behavioral traits align with conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity."
https://genspect.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Gender-Framework-Draft-One.pdf
And many more or less reputable academic sources do likewise; see:
Wikipedia: "Though the terms sex and gender have been used interchangeably since at least the fourteenth century, in contemporary academic literature they often have distinct meanings, especially when referring to people. Sex generally refers to an organism's biological sex, while gender usually refers to either social roles typically associated with the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). While in ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably, most contemporary social scientists, behavioral scientists and biologists, many legal systems and government bodies, and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO make a distinction between gender and sex."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex%E2%80%93gender_distinction
No doubt there are a few flies in that particular "ointment", but you might at least try reading those memos, not least because they've clearly been around for some time. Though one might say the same about Genspect's magnum opus -- for example, their definitions for the sexes are hardly better than folk-biology, maybe not surprising given Colin Wright's involvement.
In addition to which, Genspect's Glossary more or less deprecates the use of "transgender" yet in their opening talks about "transgender people who share our worries about over-medicalization and the influence of queer theory".
Not at all unreasonable to see those "transgender people" -- at least the more or less rational ones like Blaire White & Debbie Hayton -- as simply "gender nonconforming", terms which both Genspect and Shannon more or less endorse. Maybe moot whether that qualifies as your "true trans" -- and sufficient to get you to put up that $million you've been talking about for years -- but seems not far off.
As for your "Illy would have the mimic count as the actual sex by way of words", I expect that that is a rather self-serving misinterpretation. Particularly given his apparent acceptance of still being a male (sex), even if he may not have a flaming clue as to what is required to qualify as such. Maybe a trait he shares with you ...
This is not an article about sex or gender.
LoL. Nice to see you finally deign to respond to me.
Your "salon", your "echo chamber" of course and you get to set the rules. Though one might suggest that you set the fox in amongst the pigeons, opened the door to that topic with your suggestion of a forthcoming "article on the very inflammatory topic that’s still on all our minds". What else would that be but AGPgate?
Matt -- and too many others, like the late lamented Kat Highsmith -- are rather obstinately, not to say "pigheadedly", committed to the "idea", the cretinous dogma that sex and gender are synonymous. You and he provided something of a "target of opportunity" which I availed myself of to fire a shot across his bow.
But arguably something of a fatal flaw in much of Genspect's position that one might reasonably suggest be addressed before it swallows the whole "anti-transgender movement" -- for want of a better umbrella term --or seriously discredits much of it. Jennifer Bilek and many others are certainly making some "progress" on that score:
https://jbilek.substack.com/p/genspect-the-new-lgbt-ngo-framework
"Every good cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket" - Eric Hoffer
Any number of "flies" in the "ointment" that Genspect is peddling, though I think they have the higher ground, moral and scientific, at least relative to WPATH. Somewhat apropos of which, for all of Kat's many failings, she still has a number of useful insights that you were maybe a bit too quick to dismiss:
KS: "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. — Confucius, The Analects"
https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/gender-has-no-application-to-humans
Much of the whole transgender clusterfuck turns on how we are going to DEFINE "male" and "female", "sex" and "gender". And it IS a matter of definition -- there are NO intrinsic meanings to "male" and "female" in particular. But some definitions are more useful and credible than others -- something that Genspect, or at least one of the authors there (Colin Wright) doesn't get or want to get. Pots and kettles -- as far as the eye can see ...
I don't want to hear about Christman's day until at most 20 days before, although, I got two stars today.
Yeah, closer to Christmas would have been better, but I needed to reprint something easy right now, so here we are.
Reminds me of Irma Bombeck's famous, or infamous book, "Family: The Ties that Bind -- and Gag" ... 😉🙂
"dysfunctional" and "family" seem more or less joined at the hip -- it's a marvel that any of us wind up more or less sane as a result of our upbringing. You may have also read "Running with Scissors" which apparently elaborates on the same theme.
As for your take on that "very inflammatory topic" which I'll be looking forward to, you may wish to take a gander at Matt Osborne's latest on the "Phil Illy Incident":
https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/sympathy-for-the-devil-with-the-blue
Kinda think Matt is barking up the wrong tree as he seems dogmatically, if not congenitally, incapable of even considering that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Phil apparently said, several times at least, "gender transition" which, given Phil's apparent acceptance of being a male, would seem to clearly indicate an acceptance of that fundamental dichotomy. So Matt apparently hears "sex transition" where Phil and others say "gender transition" and then proceeds to barking, like a demented poodle, up the wrong tree -- one apparently not even in the right forest.
I look forward to reading your "inflammatory" take, but you may wish to consider giving some consideration to how contradictory definitions for both sex and gender are contributing to the whole transgender clusterfuck. Something of a "mission impossible" -- should you decide to undertake it ... --to impress that idea upon people -- as I know from experience -- but clearly an urgently required one.