And the price is right though I HAD been contributing some $50 every year. But on virtually anything to do with gender they are a basket case, egregiously biased at best.
🙂 I can sympathize - even agree with you to a substantial extent, though probably not entirely.
Read your response to Toby Rogers this morning and was planning a comment on your Substack. Briefly, it seems he's rather "committed" to the idea that gender is just a "social construct" whereas you seem to have the high, at least higher ground in arguing that "biological sex and so-called 'gender roles' are deeply intertwined".
Though the devil is in the details as to what extent and how. Something that I've given a rough outline of in my Welcome; very much a "work-in-progress":
But you might also be interested in an essay by Canadian columnist Barbara Kay over at the "Reality's Last Stand" Substack, this comment of hers in particular and my response thereto:
"Only an intellectual could believe that there are no innate, biology-driven differences between men and women."
But more to your point, I'm not entirely sure that "Gender Identity Industrial Complex" is entirely accurate, though probably a not inconsiderable amount of merit in it - seems to me that even Rogers was arguing in favour of that perspective. Seems a bigger part may be that it's simply a case of the proverbial "perfect storm"; less a case of malice than of stupidity - as Hanlon's Razor would suggest:
WRT "Gender Identity Industrial Complex" -- I was just being cute -- I should remember that the internet really isn't a conversation in which you can walk things back quickly. However, I did write it so I should clarify that I was referring to the "trans ideology" that's overtaken everything so suddenly, not Toby Rogers' Big Pharma theory.
I'm not opposed to the phrase "gender identity" per se although I think that, like the word "soul" it's nothing you can prove. But to the extent that it exists, yes, it's an epiphenomenon of biology and there's nothing "performative" about it, to use one of their buzzwords. It expresses something real.
> " But to the extent that ['gender identity'] exists, yes, it's an epiphenomenon of biology and there's nothing "performative" about it, to use one of their buzzwords. It expresses something real."
Something of a belated follow-up on that point, largely because I'm beginning to agree with you that "it expresses something real". ICYMI, something from Kathleen Stock's "Material Girls" -- highly recommended -- which provides some justification for that view:
KS: "I’m going to suggest [that] having a gender identity misaligned with sex is something comprehensible, to which society should pay respectful attention – though not the degree of uncritical acceptance we currently see. ....
The Identification model involves the general idea of someone subconsciously and consciously ‘identifying’ WITH another. Psychoanalysts Hartmann and Loewenstein write that although there are different ideas about identification in psychoanalytic theory: ‘We all agree that the result of identification is that the identifying person behaves in some ways like the person with whom he has identified himself.’ ....
Applied to gender identity, then, an identification model says that [for a male] to have a misaligned female gender identity is to identify strongly, in this psychological sense, either with a particular female or with femaleness as a general object or ideal. [Likewise with a female having a male gender identity.] ...."
There seems to be something of a mechanism underneath the hood, particularly in autistic and dysphoric children, that leads, for example, a young girl to think, "boys play with trucks and I like playing with trucks so I must be a boy". Identification writ large.
But, in other news, any thought to letting me return from the "outer darkness" to which you exiled me for the next 98 years? 😉🙂
Re the misogyny of trans-identified males, the clinical psychologist Ray Blanchard (who invented the term "autogynephilia" to amplify and replace "transvestism") commented on Twitter that this misogyny arises from narcissism, rather than from systemic patriarchy.
AGPs are both envious of women, and angrily resentful of not being accepted by them as women, despite "transition".
This is understandable given that the systemic misogyny of patriarchy stems from viewing women as inferior to men. So men who voluntarily debase themselves by identifying as "women" -- only to be rejected by actual women (particularly by exclusion from female-only spaces) -- not surprisingly hate women as a result.
"this misogyny arises from narcissism ... angrily resentful of not being accepted"
Agree entirely on both accounts. Some serious pathology there; rather depressing that society is "enabling" it -- says something not particularly flattering or encouraging about society in general.
But, ICYMI, you might "enjoy" a couple of classic articles on the theme:
No problemo. 🙂 I've often posted comments in the wrong spot, largely due to Substack limitations, and trying to comment using a "smart" phone ...
But you should be able to copy your comment and post it in the thread where you want it to be -- on which, of course, I don't know your intent -- and then delete the original later. Though it seems fine where it is.
Thank you! I'm usually able (on my phone) to edit comments on Substack articles, but for some reason it's not working today. But if my comment seems to you fine where it is, I'm happy to leave it there.
You seem to have read an enormous amount on the gender issue, and I need to go back to your article to read all the linked material as well. Shame about your summary exclusion from Wikipedia as an editor: silencing dissent appears to be the TRA dictatorship's main defensive tactic -- not surprising given the ropiness of most gender cult arguments and the absence of supporting evidence.
I've been reading about "post-truth" and "post-truth politics" (very good articles on both, in Wikipedia) as the context for an explosion of lying aka "alternative facts". It makes "gender identity" and its biology-denying cult ideology seem almost more like routine lying than anything very exceptional: as an even more depressingly thought about it all.
"... 'gender identity' per se although I think that, like the word 'soul' it's nothing you can prove."
Indeed. Almost entirely if not 100% subjective. Haven't read enough of your Substack yet to determine if you're "guilty" of this particular "sin" or not, but many seem to conflate "gender" and "gender identity" - some reason to argue that they're entirely different kettles of fish. As I tried to argue in my Welcome.
But philosopher and Substacker Michael Robillard had a decent article at Quillette a year or so ago that seems to have had a succinct summary of the difference - even if it's somewhat flawed from other perspectives:
“Given these definitions, the first source of confusion within the present transgender debate comes from scholars [and the public] frequently conflating (biologically-determined) ‘sex,’ (socially-[biologically]-determined) ‘gender [personalities & behaviours],’ (privately-determined, [entirely subjective]) ‘gender identity,’ sexual preference, and biological instances of intersex (such as Klinefelter’s and Turner syndrome) all under the same canopy term ‘gender.’
The second source and primary culprit of confusion within the present transgender debate, however, is the notion of ‘gender identity.” This is so since ‘gender identity,’ on the gender theorist’s own account, is defined entirely by one’s own wholly subjective determination.” [my addenda]
This was an exhaustive and well-written article. Glad to have found it and appreciate your willingness to walk into the lion’s den of this subject.
My only comment is that I believe the disruption, confusion, enmity and harm that has erupted from this hot-potato issue is deliberate. There are people and organizations that want chaos and disorder for their own ends, and they hit the mother lode with this topic. I hope that the work of people like you will result in restoring what has gone so horribly awry.
Thank you. Though I paid some $300 for some editing services so that may have helped on the "well-written". 🙂
But you may well be right on the "deliberate confusion". Certainly in the case of so-called newspapers who probably contribute to that because it sells.
But probably not entirely. I'm reminded of Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which can more accurately be attributed to stupidity":
Editing is a dying, perhaps almost lost art. It’s worth the money and I applaud you for doing it.
Yes, Hanlon’s razor is often the likely primary cause of a lot of the current ills. Although in my mind it makes for more questions. My drilling down can drive my hubby nuts at times, so I will spare you. Lol It’s not that I insist on definitive black and white answers per se; I hunger to understand. For to me, it seems one can’t address properly or hope to defeat what is not understood fully.
I look forward to more of your insights in future.
Yes what use an encyclopedia rooted in feelings?
Yeah. It's a pretty decent encyclopedia in many ways -- about as good as Britannica, the "gold standard":
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
And the price is right though I HAD been contributing some $50 every year. But on virtually anything to do with gender they are a basket case, egregiously biased at best.
But thanks for subscribing. 🙂
We're never going to get anywhere until we destroy the whole Gender Identity Industrial Complex. I'm working on this.
🙂 I can sympathize - even agree with you to a substantial extent, though probably not entirely.
Read your response to Toby Rogers this morning and was planning a comment on your Substack. Briefly, it seems he's rather "committed" to the idea that gender is just a "social construct" whereas you seem to have the high, at least higher ground in arguing that "biological sex and so-called 'gender roles' are deeply intertwined".
Though the devil is in the details as to what extent and how. Something that I've given a rough outline of in my Welcome; very much a "work-in-progress":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/welcome
But you might also be interested in an essay by Canadian columnist Barbara Kay over at the "Reality's Last Stand" Substack, this comment of hers in particular and my response thereto:
"Only an intellectual could believe that there are no innate, biology-driven differences between men and women."
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/gender-activists-dont-want-reform/comment/8407823
Indeed.
But more to your point, I'm not entirely sure that "Gender Identity Industrial Complex" is entirely accurate, though probably a not inconsiderable amount of merit in it - seems to me that even Rogers was arguing in favour of that perspective. Seems a bigger part may be that it's simply a case of the proverbial "perfect storm"; less a case of malice than of stupidity - as Hanlon's Razor would suggest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
WRT "Gender Identity Industrial Complex" -- I was just being cute -- I should remember that the internet really isn't a conversation in which you can walk things back quickly. However, I did write it so I should clarify that I was referring to the "trans ideology" that's overtaken everything so suddenly, not Toby Rogers' Big Pharma theory.
I'm not opposed to the phrase "gender identity" per se although I think that, like the word "soul" it's nothing you can prove. But to the extent that it exists, yes, it's an epiphenomenon of biology and there's nothing "performative" about it, to use one of their buzzwords. It expresses something real.
> " But to the extent that ['gender identity'] exists, yes, it's an epiphenomenon of biology and there's nothing "performative" about it, to use one of their buzzwords. It expresses something real."
Something of a belated follow-up on that point, largely because I'm beginning to agree with you that "it expresses something real". ICYMI, something from Kathleen Stock's "Material Girls" -- highly recommended -- which provides some justification for that view:
KS: "I’m going to suggest [that] having a gender identity misaligned with sex is something comprehensible, to which society should pay respectful attention – though not the degree of uncritical acceptance we currently see. ....
The Identification model involves the general idea of someone subconsciously and consciously ‘identifying’ WITH another. Psychoanalysts Hartmann and Loewenstein write that although there are different ideas about identification in psychoanalytic theory: ‘We all agree that the result of identification is that the identifying person behaves in some ways like the person with whom he has identified himself.’ ....
Applied to gender identity, then, an identification model says that [for a male] to have a misaligned female gender identity is to identify strongly, in this psychological sense, either with a particular female or with femaleness as a general object or ideal. [Likewise with a female having a male gender identity.] ...."
There seems to be something of a mechanism underneath the hood, particularly in autistic and dysphoric children, that leads, for example, a young girl to think, "boys play with trucks and I like playing with trucks so I must be a boy". Identification writ large.
But, in other news, any thought to letting me return from the "outer darkness" to which you exiled me for the next 98 years? 😉🙂
Re the misogyny of trans-identified males, the clinical psychologist Ray Blanchard (who invented the term "autogynephilia" to amplify and replace "transvestism") commented on Twitter that this misogyny arises from narcissism, rather than from systemic patriarchy.
AGPs are both envious of women, and angrily resentful of not being accepted by them as women, despite "transition".
This is understandable given that the systemic misogyny of patriarchy stems from viewing women as inferior to men. So men who voluntarily debase themselves by identifying as "women" -- only to be rejected by actual women (particularly by exclusion from female-only spaces) -- not surprisingly hate women as a result.
Hence "Decapitate TERFs".
"this misogyny arises from narcissism ... angrily resentful of not being accepted"
Agree entirely on both accounts. Some serious pathology there; rather depressing that society is "enabling" it -- says something not particularly flattering or encouraging about society in general.
But, ICYMI, you might "enjoy" a couple of classic articles on the theme:
http://genderapostates.com/transwomen-and-narcissistic-rage/
http://www.annelawrence.com/shame_&_narcissistic_rage.pdf
Sorry, the comment above was meant in reply to later comments in this thread. But unable to edit, copy or delete to reposition it.
No problemo. 🙂 I've often posted comments in the wrong spot, largely due to Substack limitations, and trying to comment using a "smart" phone ...
But you should be able to copy your comment and post it in the thread where you want it to be -- on which, of course, I don't know your intent -- and then delete the original later. Though it seems fine where it is.
Thank you! I'm usually able (on my phone) to edit comments on Substack articles, but for some reason it's not working today. But if my comment seems to you fine where it is, I'm happy to leave it there.
You seem to have read an enormous amount on the gender issue, and I need to go back to your article to read all the linked material as well. Shame about your summary exclusion from Wikipedia as an editor: silencing dissent appears to be the TRA dictatorship's main defensive tactic -- not surprising given the ropiness of most gender cult arguments and the absence of supporting evidence.
I've been reading about "post-truth" and "post-truth politics" (very good articles on both, in Wikipedia) as the context for an explosion of lying aka "alternative facts". It makes "gender identity" and its biology-denying cult ideology seem almost more like routine lying than anything very exceptional: as an even more depressingly thought about it all.
"... 'gender identity' per se although I think that, like the word 'soul' it's nothing you can prove."
Indeed. Almost entirely if not 100% subjective. Haven't read enough of your Substack yet to determine if you're "guilty" of this particular "sin" or not, but many seem to conflate "gender" and "gender identity" - some reason to argue that they're entirely different kettles of fish. As I tried to argue in my Welcome.
But philosopher and Substacker Michael Robillard had a decent article at Quillette a year or so ago that seems to have had a succinct summary of the difference - even if it's somewhat flawed from other perspectives:
“Given these definitions, the first source of confusion within the present transgender debate comes from scholars [and the public] frequently conflating (biologically-determined) ‘sex,’ (socially-[biologically]-determined) ‘gender [personalities & behaviours],’ (privately-determined, [entirely subjective]) ‘gender identity,’ sexual preference, and biological instances of intersex (such as Klinefelter’s and Turner syndrome) all under the same canopy term ‘gender.’
The second source and primary culprit of confusion within the present transgender debate, however, is the notion of ‘gender identity.” This is so since ‘gender identity,’ on the gender theorist’s own account, is defined entirely by one’s own wholly subjective determination.” [my addenda]
https://archive.ph/4e2n0
This was an exhaustive and well-written article. Glad to have found it and appreciate your willingness to walk into the lion’s den of this subject.
My only comment is that I believe the disruption, confusion, enmity and harm that has erupted from this hot-potato issue is deliberate. There are people and organizations that want chaos and disorder for their own ends, and they hit the mother lode with this topic. I hope that the work of people like you will result in restoring what has gone so horribly awry.
Thank you. Though I paid some $300 for some editing services so that may have helped on the "well-written". 🙂
But you may well be right on the "deliberate confusion". Certainly in the case of so-called newspapers who probably contribute to that because it sells.
But probably not entirely. I'm reminded of Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which can more accurately be attributed to stupidity":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
The painting there is, sadly, a rather damning indictment of too much of humanity.
Editing is a dying, perhaps almost lost art. It’s worth the money and I applaud you for doing it.
Yes, Hanlon’s razor is often the likely primary cause of a lot of the current ills. Although in my mind it makes for more questions. My drilling down can drive my hubby nuts at times, so I will spare you. Lol It’s not that I insist on definitive black and white answers per se; I hunger to understand. For to me, it seems one can’t address properly or hope to defeat what is not understood fully.
I look forward to more of your insights in future.