Gaze upon this headline from a story by the so-called Friendly Atheist. “Transgender Man Sues Catholic Hospital for Canceling His Hysterectomy.”
What should be noted is that the headline is not this (don’t skim, but read, this): Man Sues Catholic Hospital for Canceling His Hysterectomy.
Let’s suppose the headline was this second version. What now jumps into all minds is that the man seeking the hysterectomy is crazy, and the hospital, Catholic or not, is sane. You cannot remove a uterus from a man for the simple and time-honored reason that men do not have uteri. The second headline is thus logically equivalent to this: Man Sues Catholic Mathematician Who Refuses To Deduce 1 + 1 = 4.
Now, in many cases, you can remove a uterus from a woman, because normal woman have uteri. Indeed, the presence of a uterus is one of the indications that the person in front of us is a female and not male. It is not a foolproof indication, for the woman may have already had hers out, say, because of cancer. Still, a uterus is normally found inside women.
Even the people—or I should say especially the people—who use the term “transgender man” know this. The prefix (“transgender”) admits the truth. If the people using this term did not know the truth, then they would just say man sans transgender.
Thus “transgender man” does not mean “man”, but “woman” or “woman who says she’s a man.” I emphasize: if the writer means man he can say “man”. That he does not say “man”, but “transgender man”, means he is admitting the person under discussion is a woman.
Further, everybody knows this, not just the people who use the prefix “transgender”. The Friendly Atheist (or whoever wrote the headline) knew the second headline would look ridiculous, but somehow he thought the first version made sense.
It does not. The idea is that women who think they are men have some sort of “right”, which therefore implies a duty on someone’s part, to whatever mutilation that crosses their minds. The woman who wanted her uterus out, the article says, was healthy, her uterus undamaged (given shoddy reporting, I could be wrong on her particular medical details, but the point remains). It makes no sense to remove healthy, functioning tissue, so the hospital—or should I say Catholic hospital—demurred.
There are two perspectives: the woman’s and the hospital’s.
The woman thought that removing her uterus would make her more like a man, men not having uteri. But men also do not have 350 small block engines cycling their innards. Indeed, there are an infinite number of things men do not have, in or out of them, almost all of which women don’t have either. Men and women are already almost identical in what they don’t possess. So the absence of one more thing is a poor indicator of manliness.
Plus, since some women are uterus-free because of illness and so on, yet they are still women, it is clear the lack of uterus does not make one into a man.
Besides all that, there will be any number of items in this women, all unremovable, that make her a woman. Such as however many trillions, or whatever, of cells in her body, which say “female”. Her brain and various other organs, if not made that way from the start, have all been altered since conception to say “female”. She was, to coin a phrase, born that way.
A carrot stuck down her shorts will never be a penis, even if the carrot is replaced by actual flesh. Wearing a lumberjack shirt or sporting a chemically induced (or glue on) beard also does not make the woman a man, just as it wouldn’t make a bundle of corn stalks, to which we can also alter in the same way, into a man.
There is thus no way, no way at all, to surgically or chemically make a woman into a man. The woman, regardless what “experts” might say, is therefore crazy to think she can become a man. No matter what changes she makes, she will always be infinitely far from her target.
It is also interesting, as widespread as this craziness is, to wonder why people do not imagine they can be other things they are not. There are a few people, it’s true, who think they are a different race, but race is “softer”, i.e. less well defined, so much so that the pretense does not usually signal craziness, unless the claim is made late and publicly.
Some think they are dogs or other creatures. Truly believing this is just as crazy as a woman thinking she’s a man. But it seems that most people pretending to be other animals aren’t really serious about it, or, if they are, they are already institutionalized and hidden from view.
Why do we accept the idea that women can “transition” into men so strongly? If society agrees with the soon-to-be-late-and-unlamented Justice Anthony Kennedy that everybody gets to both define their own existence and insist everybody else agree with their redefinition, why stick to sex?
Why not believe you are “really” a cup full of epsom salts, or a law chair, or a top quark, or wadded up stick of gum under a chair? Why limit ourselves to one measly dimension? We are suffering from severe lack of imagination.
Now the hospital’s perspective.
It is true many quacks will do anything they think they can get away with, as long as the fee is large enough. The crazy woman wanting her uterus out will surely find a certified flesh cutter who wants a new SUV badly enough. The woman just won’t receive these services from the particular hospital that has earned the Friendly Atheist’s, and, as it turns out, the ACLU’s ire.
Suing the hospital shows the real insanity is not the crazy woman, for crazy people have and ever will be with us, but the government and society insisting everybody say the woman is sane, the insistence enforced with various official and unofficial penalties. It’s not enough for the crazy woman to say “I am a man”, you have to say so, too.
Alas, even if we were willing to give up our own sanity, we have proven we cannot truly do it. Our rebellious nature and love of truth makes us say “trans man” and not “man.” For if we really believed the crazy woman, we would say just “man.” We still have a way to go to reach our Utopia.
Anyway, under the precise same reasoning, if a woman says, “I am a top quark”, you will also have to agree. Pointing out facts, such as proving she is not a top quark, as with the fact the woman is not a man, will not excuse you from being labeled a quarkophobe. The best you will get away with is writing, “She is a trans quark.”
But this is getting too far from the idea a hospital should do whatever it is a customer (I do not say patient) wants. If that is so, then only the crazy have rights, and the sane only duties, most performed under duress. If a physician has to cut out a healthy uterus from a trans woman, then a physicist would have to agree to put our trans-quark into a bubble chamber and pretend to take reading on her, or it.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here