Hmmmm, I know I am late to this party, but this raises an equally important question:
What is a Real Man?
In these confusing times, a pressing question has emerged that demands our attention: What is a real man?
For centuries, the answer seemed obvious. A real man was strong, stoic, and unemotional. He was a provider, a protector, and a leader. He was, in short, the very embodiment of traditional masculinity.
But now, that once-clear definition has been thrown into chaos by the rise of so-called "progressive" ideas about gender. Suddenly, we're being told that men can be sensitive, nurturing, and even (gasp!) feminine. We're being asked to believe that masculinity exists on a spectrum, and that there's no one "right" way to be a man.
Well, I'm here to tell you that this is all a bunch of politically correct nonsense. The truth is, there is only one kind of real man, and he is defined by a strict set of biological and behavioral traits.
A real man has a penis and testicles. He has high levels of testosterone coursing through his veins. He is physically strong, aggressive, and dominant. He cuts as sharp and trim figure as he does excel in his physical form, demonstrated through his physical prowess. He is a hunter, a fighter, and a conqueror.
Any so-called "man" who doesn't fit this mold is not a real man at all. He is a imposter, a fraud, a sad product of a society that has lost its way. He is, in short, a "soy boy" or a "cuck" - a pathetic excuse for a male who has been emasculated by feminism and "woke" culture.
Now, some might argue that this narrow, binary view of masculinity is harmful and outdated. They might point to the fact that many men suffer from mental health issues, substance abuse, and violence as evidence that traditional gender roles are toxic and oppressive.
But I say that the solution is not to abandon the very concept of manhood, but to double down on it. We need to teach our boys to be tough, stoic, and unemotional from a young age. We need to celebrate and reinforce the biological differences between men and women, not blur them. We need to resist the siren song of "gender ideology" and hold fast to the eternal, immutable truth of what it means to be a man.
Because mark my words: if we allow the definition of manhood to be expanded and diluted, we will be opening the door to a world of chaos and confusion. We will be undermining the very foundation of our society, which depends on strong, dominant men to lead and protect us.
So, what is a real man? He is the alpha male, the king of the jungle, the master of his domain. And if you dare to suggest otherwise, you are not just deluded - you are a traitor to your gender and to the natural order itself.
See? We can use the author's formula to argue for anything, as evidenced in this satirical take.
Here is a wild take folks, maybe transgender people aren't denying biology, maybe they are embracing the full diversity of human biology and experience. Maybe they are living proof that our simplistic categories of 'male' and 'female' don't always match the lived reality and experiences of people's bodies and minds. Maybe the truth is that the biological reality of sex is far more complex and varied than most of us were taught in school, and the social reality of gender is even more so. How arrogant are we to assume we know in totality all that there is to know about anything, let alone something as complex and varied as sex and gender?
So to those who cling to rigid, binary notions of womanhood, I say this: Be careful, heed this warning. Down that path lies ideology, dogma, and madness. It's a path that denies the beautiful complexity of human life in favor of a narrow, fearful worldview.
To those who feel threatened or confused by the idea of transgender identity, I would encourage you to listen to the stories and experiences of transgender people with an open mind. You may find that they are not so different from your own hopes, fears, and struggles. And you may come to see that expanding our understanding of gender does not diminish womanhood (or manhood!), but enriches it.
And to the transgender women out there living their truth in the face of ignorance and hate, I say this: You are seen. You are valid. You are women. Keep shining. Your courage and authenticity are a light in the darkness of bigotry and fear.
"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
I found this after reading your comments and discussions with others in the comments sections of various articles in Reality's Last Stand. I have some comments and a question.
First the comments:
Regarding Maya Forstater and her stated belief in the immutability of sex in humans, I posit there may be a simpler explanation for that stated belief than it being based on some magic essence, namely that "immutability" may be short hand for the idea that you can't change men into women or vice versa.
The medical treatments and surgery that trans people may undergo to look like members of the opposite sex, at best give one the external appearance of that sex. Even if you define male / female in terms of possession of relevant reproductive anatomy / structures rather than functioning gonads this seems true to me. Even the most complete medical transition will not e.g. give a transwoman a womb, ovaries or uterus, whilst the surgically constructed neo-vagina isn't a real vagina.
Another comment: we routinely refer to people / classify them as boys or girls, men or women, without knowing the status of their gonads - it seems to me this reflects the fact that human bodies come in 2 broad classes (admittedly with a lot of variation in those classes) - one associated with small gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs), the other associated with large gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs). I realise this is moving into 'family resemblances' territory, but it also seems to me a reality of being human. We can look at someone and, based on their collective physical characteristics, classify them as male or female in a way that correlates well with the role in reproduction they would play if/once they have functioning gonads. This may explain why some people reach for a definition of sex that doesn't require functioning gonads. Note that we often sex animals in a similar manner - e.g. after neutering a male cat we will likely still refer to the cat as 'he' or 'him'.
This leads me to my question: how would you define the categories of boy and girl, given that (pre-pubescent) children are sexless under the strict biological definition of sex you prefer?
Certainly teenager is age limited (as are baby, infant, middle-aged and elderly, to less well defined degrees) because it is an age category, and that doesn't equate to an argument that sex must also be age-limited. As I understand it, you stick so strictly to the one criterion for defining sex—production of large or small gametes—that you feel infants, children and post-climacteric quondam women are to be considered sexless. Might we not solve that problem by indicating that sex is defined by the gametes you make during your reproductive years? A girl is a woman-to-be, and a crone an honorary woman still? And the same thing for boys (old men are still producing small motile gametes so I assume you have no issue with their title). I'm not a taxonomist, and I don't think that practical people need be reductionist about diagnosing sex. We can live with the idea that the sexes in normal humans are characterised by the gametes they make when of reproductive age, the chromosomes they have, and by their endocrine functions.
But in the bigger picture, what is the point of this hair-splitting? You don't like the idea of sex being immutable, but why is this? You are not suggesting, I know, that what we used to call a sex-change surgery does anything of the sort, and we all know that. I find it curious, by the way, that the folk who now refer to themselves as 'transgender' still want what is called 'sex-re-assignment surgery.' There is enough confusion about sex and gender without adding to it by claiming sex is a transitory category to which we belong only for part of our lives. Unless, Steers old friend, you are subconsciously trying to assist the trans activists in muddying the waters further. I don't think you are, so what is your purpose?
Hmmmm, I know I am late to this party, but this raises an equally important question:
What is a Real Man?
In these confusing times, a pressing question has emerged that demands our attention: What is a real man?
For centuries, the answer seemed obvious. A real man was strong, stoic, and unemotional. He was a provider, a protector, and a leader. He was, in short, the very embodiment of traditional masculinity.
But now, that once-clear definition has been thrown into chaos by the rise of so-called "progressive" ideas about gender. Suddenly, we're being told that men can be sensitive, nurturing, and even (gasp!) feminine. We're being asked to believe that masculinity exists on a spectrum, and that there's no one "right" way to be a man.
Well, I'm here to tell you that this is all a bunch of politically correct nonsense. The truth is, there is only one kind of real man, and he is defined by a strict set of biological and behavioral traits.
A real man has a penis and testicles. He has high levels of testosterone coursing through his veins. He is physically strong, aggressive, and dominant. He cuts as sharp and trim figure as he does excel in his physical form, demonstrated through his physical prowess. He is a hunter, a fighter, and a conqueror.
Any so-called "man" who doesn't fit this mold is not a real man at all. He is a imposter, a fraud, a sad product of a society that has lost its way. He is, in short, a "soy boy" or a "cuck" - a pathetic excuse for a male who has been emasculated by feminism and "woke" culture.
Now, some might argue that this narrow, binary view of masculinity is harmful and outdated. They might point to the fact that many men suffer from mental health issues, substance abuse, and violence as evidence that traditional gender roles are toxic and oppressive.
But I say that the solution is not to abandon the very concept of manhood, but to double down on it. We need to teach our boys to be tough, stoic, and unemotional from a young age. We need to celebrate and reinforce the biological differences between men and women, not blur them. We need to resist the siren song of "gender ideology" and hold fast to the eternal, immutable truth of what it means to be a man.
Because mark my words: if we allow the definition of manhood to be expanded and diluted, we will be opening the door to a world of chaos and confusion. We will be undermining the very foundation of our society, which depends on strong, dominant men to lead and protect us.
So, what is a real man? He is the alpha male, the king of the jungle, the master of his domain. And if you dare to suggest otherwise, you are not just deluded - you are a traitor to your gender and to the natural order itself.
See? We can use the author's formula to argue for anything, as evidenced in this satirical take.
Here is a wild take folks, maybe transgender people aren't denying biology, maybe they are embracing the full diversity of human biology and experience. Maybe they are living proof that our simplistic categories of 'male' and 'female' don't always match the lived reality and experiences of people's bodies and minds. Maybe the truth is that the biological reality of sex is far more complex and varied than most of us were taught in school, and the social reality of gender is even more so. How arrogant are we to assume we know in totality all that there is to know about anything, let alone something as complex and varied as sex and gender?
So to those who cling to rigid, binary notions of womanhood, I say this: Be careful, heed this warning. Down that path lies ideology, dogma, and madness. It's a path that denies the beautiful complexity of human life in favor of a narrow, fearful worldview.
To those who feel threatened or confused by the idea of transgender identity, I would encourage you to listen to the stories and experiences of transgender people with an open mind. You may find that they are not so different from your own hopes, fears, and struggles. And you may come to see that expanding our understanding of gender does not diminish womanhood (or manhood!), but enriches it.
And to the transgender women out there living their truth in the face of ignorance and hate, I say this: You are seen. You are valid. You are women. Keep shining. Your courage and authenticity are a light in the darkness of bigotry and fear.
"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
You are a very, very, very sick man
Hi Steersman,
I found this after reading your comments and discussions with others in the comments sections of various articles in Reality's Last Stand. I have some comments and a question.
First the comments:
Regarding Maya Forstater and her stated belief in the immutability of sex in humans, I posit there may be a simpler explanation for that stated belief than it being based on some magic essence, namely that "immutability" may be short hand for the idea that you can't change men into women or vice versa.
The medical treatments and surgery that trans people may undergo to look like members of the opposite sex, at best give one the external appearance of that sex. Even if you define male / female in terms of possession of relevant reproductive anatomy / structures rather than functioning gonads this seems true to me. Even the most complete medical transition will not e.g. give a transwoman a womb, ovaries or uterus, whilst the surgically constructed neo-vagina isn't a real vagina.
Another comment: we routinely refer to people / classify them as boys or girls, men or women, without knowing the status of their gonads - it seems to me this reflects the fact that human bodies come in 2 broad classes (admittedly with a lot of variation in those classes) - one associated with small gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs), the other associated with large gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs). I realise this is moving into 'family resemblances' territory, but it also seems to me a reality of being human. We can look at someone and, based on their collective physical characteristics, classify them as male or female in a way that correlates well with the role in reproduction they would play if/once they have functioning gonads. This may explain why some people reach for a definition of sex that doesn't require functioning gonads. Note that we often sex animals in a similar manner - e.g. after neutering a male cat we will likely still refer to the cat as 'he' or 'him'.
This leads me to my question: how would you define the categories of boy and girl, given that (pre-pubescent) children are sexless under the strict biological definition of sex you prefer?
Certainly teenager is age limited (as are baby, infant, middle-aged and elderly, to less well defined degrees) because it is an age category, and that doesn't equate to an argument that sex must also be age-limited. As I understand it, you stick so strictly to the one criterion for defining sex—production of large or small gametes—that you feel infants, children and post-climacteric quondam women are to be considered sexless. Might we not solve that problem by indicating that sex is defined by the gametes you make during your reproductive years? A girl is a woman-to-be, and a crone an honorary woman still? And the same thing for boys (old men are still producing small motile gametes so I assume you have no issue with their title). I'm not a taxonomist, and I don't think that practical people need be reductionist about diagnosing sex. We can live with the idea that the sexes in normal humans are characterised by the gametes they make when of reproductive age, the chromosomes they have, and by their endocrine functions.
But in the bigger picture, what is the point of this hair-splitting? You don't like the idea of sex being immutable, but why is this? You are not suggesting, I know, that what we used to call a sex-change surgery does anything of the sort, and we all know that. I find it curious, by the way, that the folk who now refer to themselves as 'transgender' still want what is called 'sex-re-assignment surgery.' There is enough confusion about sex and gender without adding to it by claiming sex is a transitory category to which we belong only for part of our lives. Unless, Steers old friend, you are subconsciously trying to assist the trans activists in muddying the waters further. I don't think you are, so what is your purpose?
Yes, indeed, words are ambiguous by definition and categories always have fuzzy boundaries...
that's biology....
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/whats-a-woman-whats-a-man-whats-an
See what happens when you stop keeping mating pairs of hamsters in elementary school classrooms?