Open Letters; Ideological Capture
New York Times and Slate
https://ifunny.co/picture/doctor-sir-patient-excuse-me-doctor-it-s-ma-am-X4bmSpp69?s=cl
The following is a publication of three letters I recently sent off to a trio of authors at the New York Times, and to one at Slate. The reason for the letters was that I had very much objected to what has to be either sloppy, careless and imprecise terminology; and/or “ideological capture” by transactivists; and/or scientific illiteracy if not pigheaded ignorance.
The crux of the problem is the too common use of phrases like “transgender girls” and “transgender female athletes” in the two Times articles, and the view, in the Slate article, that humans can “transition from one sex to another”. While it is somewhat moot as to what is the “essence” of “male” and “female”, as to how to define those categories — particularly since too many so-called biologists and philosophers have been muddying the waters — the standard convention of mainstream biology is that, to a first approximation, it is necessary to have either testicles or ovaries to qualify for membership in those categories. In which case those “transgender girls” and “transgender female athletes” are, in fact, simply boys and males. And, by those same definitions, it is flatly impossible, at least with current technology, for any one of us to change sex.
As
— the mother of a dysphoric teenage daughter who’s now self-prescribing testosterone; clearly someone with some serious skin in the game — once succinctly put it:Definitions - that's what it's all about. We cannot understand each other if we are not properly defining our terms. It's almost worse than speaking different languages because, instead of shaking our heads and failing to understand, people are hearing words, misunderstanding them, and drawing incorrect conclusions about what is being said.
Amen to that. Those four “authors” aren’t informing the public; they’re simply peddling the latest variations on Orwell’s “2+2=5”. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder — writing on her blog Back Reaction — summarized the problem neatly, a concept that is just as applicable to man’s laws as it is to “God’s”:
The maybe most important lesson physicists have learned over the past centuries is that if a theory has internal inconsistencies, it is wrong. By internal inconsistencies, I mean that the theory’s axioms lead to statements that contradict each other.
Hard to imagine a more egregious and toxic manifestation of “internal inconsistencies” than the transactivist mantra that “trans women are women”, than even suggesting that “transgender girls” are actually girls, are actually juvenile females. That phrase is essentially saying that feminine juvenile males are actually females: “from contradiction anything follows”.
In any case, herewith the three letters I sent off, the most recent first, bracketed additions for dates and details. Though it should be noted there’s some duplication in those three letters — some “boilerplate” — that I’ve left in for the sake of completeness:
First letter re: John Roberts’ Anti-Trans Opinion Is a Garbled Mess. It’s Easy to See Why.
Slate article, June 18, 2025;
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/06/skrmetti-john-roberts-anti-trans-supreme-court.html
Archive link: https://archive.ph/IQZcB
Dear Mr. Stern,
[July 4, 2025]
's Substack (as user "Steersman"), and a retired electronics technologist writing from the hinterlands of Canada (anything more than 50 miles north of the border ...) The reason for my email is to comment on that Slate article of yours, on your [published] email exchanges with Jesse, and to clarify a number of points that you're apparently not aware of.
My name is Jim Wiggins, a subscriber to
But the proximate reason is your periodic use, in your last email to Jesse, of "transition from one sex to another" as in the following:Stern:
transitioning away from the sex they were assigned at birth to a different sex;
desire to transition from one sex to another
help a minor transition from one sex to another
limit a minor’s ability to transition from one sex to another
allow them to transition to a different sex
A phrasing that Jesse quotes Judge Sutton likewise using:
to transition from one sex to another);
Testosterone transitions a minor from female to male;
Estrogen transitions a minor from male to female
But the problem in both cases is that — at least by the standard biological definitions "promulgated" by any number of reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, as well as by President Trump's Executive Order on "restoring biological truth to government" — absolutely NO human will EVER change sex; it's a medical impossibility. To a first approximation, those biological definitions say that to have a sex is to have gonads of either of two types — testicles or ovaries — and there is simply no way, on gawd's green earth, that anyone with testicles is ever going to replace them with ovaries, or vice versa.
ALL that the use of cross-sex hormones does is to cause people of one sex to develop or exhibit some of the superficial, secondary sexual traits typical of the other sex. For example, males developing the breasts typical of females. However, breasts are NOT the defining trait for "female", are not the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a member of that category; only ovaries are.
Big part of that problem — encompassed by the Skrmetti case and by the forthcoming ones in the US Supreme Court about transgender athletes — is the confusion — some of it intentional — over "sex" and "gender", over what each of those terms refer to and denote, and over how those terms are to be defined, both in law and in biology. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in this oldish Telegraph article which neatly summarizes the problem, even if it's rather light on the specifics of those definitions — devils in the details and all that:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/kg6QUTelegraph title, opening paragraph, and something of a useful conclusion:
A third of Britons don’t know that transgender women were born male; Survey reveals ‘high levels of misunderstanding and confusion’ around terms commonly used to refer to trans people
More than a third of UK residents do not know that transgender women are biologically male, according to a poll, calling into question public understanding of the debate over gender. ....
[Maya Forstater:] “Terms like ‘trans woman’ and ‘transgender woman’ are confusing – intentionally so.”
So that "confusion" is ubiquitous — sadly, even among the judiciary — which causes no end of problems, and tends to preclude equitable solutions to what is clearly a significant social problem. As a starting point towards the resolution of that problem both you, and SCOTUS, might consider this rather illuminating analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia:
The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine to male.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
Moot also is exactly how we should define both sex and gender, particularly in law, although, as mentioned, President Trump's EO on "restoring biological truth to government" provides a more or less accurate summation of the standard biological definitions for the sexes. However, "gender" is something of a dog's breakfast, although Scalia's "cultural or attitudinal characteristics" typical of males (i.e., masculine gender) and of females (i.e., feminine gender) seems close to a consensus view of the phenomenon — which is, basically and to a first approximation, various sexually dimorphic personality traits, behaviours, roles, and expressions. For a fairly succinct summation of that consensus, consider this editorial from the British Medical Journal:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, “Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
Though many people quite reasonably argue that "gender" isn't entirely "socially constructed" — many "sexually dimorphic traits" are determined or heavily influenced by the two, and only two types of reproductive organs — testicles and ovaries — that most of us are born with.
But a complex topic, generally muddied by incoherent and inconsistent definitions. As Voltaire once put it, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” You may wish to read my own kick at that kitty, at trying to put "gender" on something of a more scientific footing:
A Multi-Dimensional Gender Spectrum;
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statisticshttps://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
Happy 4th of July.
Sincerely,
En passant, while I haven’t taken a close look at Stern’s Slate article, one might reasonably argue that the “reason” he thinks Justice Roberts’ judgement is a “garbled mess” is because he’s starting off from the untenable premise that it’s actually possible for humans to change sex. Given that that is medically impossible, one might also argue that the more or less explicit claim in the Skrmetti case by various “doctors” to the contrary constitutes a medical scandal of the first water, and well justifies Roberts’ agreement with the Tennessee solicitor general.
Second letter re: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases Involving Transgender Athletes
New York Times, July 3, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/us/politics/supreme-court-transgender-athletes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Tk8.rCzV.TkHagYzVrGUQ&smid=url-share
Dear Ms. VanSickle, & Ms. Macur,
[July 4, 2025]
My name is Jim Wiggins, a NY Times subscriber (for the last dozen years or so), and a retired electronics technologist writing from the hinterlands of Canada (anything more than 10 miles north of the border ...) The reason for my email is to comment on that article of yours, and to clarify a number of points that you're apparently not aware of.
But the proximate reason is your periodic use of "transgender girl" as in the following:
NY Times: "The state has allowed transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports for more than a decade."
But the problem there — the bias, intentional or not — is that those "transgender girls" aren't anything of the sort. They are, at best, simply feminine or effeminate boys, i.e., males. The crux of the matter then is whether such boys (i.e., males) should be allowed to play in sports leagues previously designated for the sole use of girls (i.e., females).
And part of that problem, that bias (intentional or not), is that most people don't realize that there's a profound difference between "sex" and "gender", nor have much of a clue what each of those categories encompasses or how they're defined. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in this oldish Telegraph article which neatly summarizes the problem, even if it's rather light on the specifics of those definitions — devils in the details:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/
Archive Link: https://archive.ph/kg6QU
Telegraph title, opening paragraph, and something of a useful conclusion:
A third of Britons don’t know that transgender women were born male
Survey reveals ‘high levels of misunderstanding and confusion’ around terms commonly used to refer to trans people
More than a third of UK residents do not know that transgender women are biologically male, according to a poll, calling into question public understanding of the debate over gender. ....
[Maya Forstater:] “Terms like ‘trans woman’ and ‘transgender woman’ are confusing – intentionally so.”
Relative to that conclusion, "trans girl" is likewise "confusing", and often intentionally so. As a starting point towards more unbiased and accurate reporting, the New York Times may wish to deprecate terms like "trans girl" and "trans woman" in favour of more scientifically accurate terms like "transgirl" and "transwoman" since the compound word carries no implicit argument that said individuals are actual girls (i.e., juvenile females) or actual women (i.e., adult human females).
Moot of course how that dichotomy will play out in the cases you have described, but the Times, and the US Supreme Court both might want to consider this rather illuminating analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia:
The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine to male.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
Moot also is exactly how we should define both sex and gender, particularly in law, although President Trump's EO on "restoring biological truth to government" provides a more or less accurate summation of the standard biological definitions for the sexes. However, "gender" is something of a dog's breakfast, although Scalia's "cultural or attitudinal characteristics" typical of males (masculine gender) and of females (feminine gender) seems close to a consensus view of the phenomenon -- which is, basically and to a first approximation, various sexually dimorphic personality traits, behaviours, roles, and expressions.
As you both point out, there's something of a rather toxic "culture war over transgender rights" that has some far-reaching consequences. Hopefully the foregoing will contribute to more accurate reporting of the issues, facts, and science in play.
Happy 4th of July.
Sincerely,
Third letter re: Democrats’ Wary Response to Transgender Ruling Shows the Party’s Retreat
New York Times article, June 18, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/politics/democrats-supreme-court-transgender-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Qk8.Pv30.G1kUSzIPvDtC&smid=url-share
Mr. Browning,
[June 21, 2025]
My name is Jim Wiggins, I'm currently a subscriber to the NY Times, and I read with interest your latest article on that "Transgender Ruling":
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/politics/democrats-supreme-court-transgender-ruling.html
Interesting observations, though this bit kind of chaps my hide, particularly since it's largely an oxymoron, anti-scientific claptrap, or an outright lie:
"... nearly 80 percent of Americans — including 67 percent of Democrats — believed that transgender female athletes ..."
"transgender female athletes" are, in fact, males. Rather depressing is the degree of scientific illiteracy, if not outright cluelessness, particularly so in "the newspaper of record", in that phrase. You may wish to consider exactly what are the biological definitions that are more or less the de facto standards, and which have largely been replicated by President Trump's EO order "restoring biological truth in government. From the Glossary of an article in the well regarded Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
To a first approximation, to be a female is to have ovaries, and to be a male is to have testicles; those are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as members of those categories. Those "transgender female athletes" haven't replaced their testicles with ovaries, and by those definitions, they're still males. All they have is some feminine traits or a desire to be treated as if they were actual females, as if they had changed sex. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride ...
Regards,
Good stuff, as usual. Although, I do have to have a smirk at your own contextual definitional fuzziness re: the Canadian 'hinterlands', which are a good 50 miles north of the U.S. border when addressing Slate, but a mere 10 miles northwards wrt the NYT. ;) Cheers! _Alan M
Well, it's always fun to read your pieces. But I'd say what you're attempting to do is analogous to me writing to the Pope and observing the ridiculousness of a guy wearing a yarmulke and a dress in his role as the Supreme Leader of one of the three Middle Eastern blood sacrifice cults and expecting him to be persuaded by my argument.
Those "journalists" you wrote to are fully invested in being polite and respectful and willing to continue to promote the lie that it's a big complicated subject about which there are many perhaps equally valid viewpoints.
I'm fairly sure that the still small voice speaking up annoyingly from some metaphysical corner of their anatomies has already told them that this is all craziness and they hope to God to escape the rubble when the roof finally comes crashing down.
Any kindergartner whose classroom has contained a mating pair of hamsters understands what boys are and what girls are and what needs to happen to enable them to have offspring of the same species of mammal--and this even if the library shelves in that classroom also contain copies of "I am Jazz" and "Heather Has Two Mommies." Of course all of current education is determined to beat this basic knowledge out of the heads of our children and insert the precepts of a deranged cult into them.
Stern and Singal et al know what women are and what men are and that Caitlyn Jenner is one hell of a fucked-up guy and that Jenny Boylan et al betrayed their wives and kids and ought not to be allowed near other people's children under any circumstances.
They ought really to read the memoir published by one of Jan Morris's daughters that will give a brutal introduction to what happens to a family when the paterfamilias decides, some fine day, to become a sister-wife to his own now-careworn bride and demands that none of the kids he's the progenitor of should ever again refer to him as daddy.
This dreadful contagion must burn itself out as it eventually runs out of fuel. There's always a previous insane contagion and there will always be another one.
And perhaps, with grieved but clear eyes, we must recognize that this too is nature's way of removing the unfortunately defective from the breeding pool. It's never a clean operation.