If this is so, if sex is an imaginary construct, a decision, then how is it a person decides? I mean, what has the individual to go on? He can’t look out over mankind and notice that some are biologically female and some male and say, “I choose female” because there is basis; there are no females in the first place. There just is no such thing as a biological female, just people who act in a certain way. All a “transgender” wannabe can say is “I choose to behave in ways similar to this set of people.”
But then there is no reason to limit ourselves to a dichotomy, since the dichotomy is just a construct. There aren’t two biological sexes after all, just two historical choices. Since we’re abandoning the fetters of history, we need not restrain ourselves to these two choices. We can have an infinite number. Gender must become, if the academic theory is true, whatever we want it to be.
Unfortunately, whatever choice a person makes—and sticks to—is to exclude other choices. Which is to say that once a person makes a choice this person necessarily (that’s a logical “necessarily”, meaning what follows is true no matter what) discriminates against the other choices. Thus when person D says to person E, “I know you chose orientation Y, but I choose orientation X. You should too.” person E discriminates against person D if person E refused to reorient. E denies D’s “lifestyle”.
Yes, E can change E’s mind, and many times. But if E wants to stick being “oriented” towards (say) kitchen carpets, then E is going to have to suffer the charges of genderism (or maybe they’ll call it orientationism).
On the other hand, if we’re stuck with the old-fashioned scientific notion of gender, then if a boy wants to pretend he’s a girl we are right to say, “Dude. You’re not a girl.” Yet if the academic theory is correct, we must never utter such a phrase.
All this and more was on my mind as I read of California’s latest attempt to convert itself fully to the Self. The state’s Assembly and its Senate have passed Assembly Bill 1266, which “would require public schools in his state to allow students to choose which bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams match their gender identity.” Rumor is Governor Brown will sign it.
There’s the academic theory in its full glory. Gender is a choice, and who are we to say a choice is wrong? A (in the old scientific theory) biological boy wants to join the “girl’s” basketball team and hang out in the showers swapping hair tips must be allowed to do so. And why not?
Ah, wouldn’t work. All the other “boys” would get wind of it and rush to join, too. Day Two would see “girl’s” shower room crowded with nothing but disappointed “boys.” Plus that once-great state said it would pay for separate facilities (using money borrowed from its citizens) to allow “girls” who didn’t want “boys” ogling them in the showers.
Which is state-sponsored discrimination, no question about it. Which means it’s only a matter of time before somebody sues and the “girls” have to let the “boys” in. Anything else would be against equality, that noblest of goals.
Anyway, I’m for it. End all discrimination based on “gender” or “sex.” No more “boys” football and “girls” football: just football, with the same rigorous standards set for all team members. No quotas of this or that orientation: just ability. And no fair allowing a person who identifies as “girl” easier exercises. That is gross discrimination.
And do the same thing in the military. Now “women” are allowed to do “push-ups” on their knees, and they still don’t have to do as many as the “men,” nor do they have to run as far or lift as much and so forth. This discrimination must end, at least in California. Set the same requirements for all orientations!
Oh, forgot to mention. The bill is called “Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities.” Rights, you see. And rights can’t be wrongs.
A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.
Since that can’t be topped, I leave off here.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (I laugh for relief.)
The Wus and their supporters believe that government authorities are using a crude form of biological determinism to confer gender…
Under the logic of biological determinism, a man who does not function biologically as societyâ€™s vision of a man would not be considered eligible for marriage to a woman, and vice versa.
Such a policy ruling is unthinkable when it comes to people who identify clearly as a man or a woman, but itâ€™s a reality for the Wus.
There is currently no law that guarantees the marriage rights of a genderqueer person, whose union often falls into the category of same-sex marriage.
Update Bound to have happened.
But since boy pretending to be girl woos a girl pretending to be a boy, then all is well.