"A violent sex offender has been awarded more than $2.5 million in legal fees after suing the state for withholding 'gender affirming care' while incarcerated for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy."
DETRANSITIONERS, DESISTERS, PARENTS, MEDICAL PROVIEDERS: see the end of the Reuter's article, even if you don't have time to read it all. "Do you have an experience with gender-affirming care to share as a patient, family member or medical provider? Share it with Reuters.https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tips/
Seems she too has contacted the authors, and one of them has responded accepting Dansky's "invitation to talk".
But it is absolutely astounding that -- as my open letter to them (here) emphasizes -- they have a completely different set of definitions in play for both sex and gender than does even Dansky - which are no great shakes in themselves.
Not sure of the prognosis for that talk if everyone is talking a different language - and nary a translator in sight ...
All voices and perspectives are important. There are many strands of truth. And in the gender wars, there are many fronts. As you know, many "gender critical" people have fervent red-line disagreements with each other about all manner of issues. No two detransitioners stories or views are exactly the same, but hearing about different experiences helps people form their views. A reporter's job is not to find out who is "right," but to dig in, investigate and let people decide for themselves. Less biased reporting will be beneficial for everyone.
For me, the biggest story with this Reuter's piece is that the crack is widening on what the mainstream media is willing to cover. That they are putting resources into it instead of just parroting what the Trevor Project or Jack Turban tells them is the truth. And that they are actively asking for people to contact them. It has been shameful that they will not report honestly and diligently as journalists and editors when there is no doubt that they have known about some of these unreported facts and perspectives for some time. It is because of every one of us working to get through to them in whatever ways we have been doing, anonymously or not. I for one am happy to see this article as a sign of change. It's the whole reason Lee and I envisioned the benefit of GC News, because we saw that without the media turning around, this madness would never turn around. Totally fine that you shared your letter here, it's great that you wrote to them yourself Steersman!
Quite agree on those "many strands of truth", although the grasp on those strands by many people is rather tenuous at best. 🙂
But hadn't run across many "fervent red-line disagreements" among "gender critical people". Although I am seeing increasing, but welcome evidence that more people, including many feminists are recognizing some degree of feminist culpability for much of the whole transgender clusterfuck -- excuse my French, but I'm not sure there's enough sugar on the planet to coat that rather bitter pill.
For instance and ICYMI, see Kathleen Stock's Welcome post where she argued that the "stupid story" [transgenderism] has reduced much of feminism to "risible absurdities"; why she's argued that feminism itself is in serious need of a "reboot":
Though she's a bit light on the details there, but her later argument -- that radfems are "barking (mad)" to want to "abolish gender" -- is more solid:
Exactly how and why that has come about is, no doubt, a rather contentious and convoluted topic of some depth, but more than a few justifiably argue -- including Stock in that last article -- that it's because far too many feminists are in serious denial about biology themselves. Apropos of which, you might be interested in a cogent review here of Louise Perry's book by Helen Dale, a review that Helen Joyce had touted in a tweet that had been posted here recently:
You might also be interested in my comments about Dale's review on her Substack, particularly about these zingers of hers:
"counterblast to the braindead feminism"; "sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality"; "what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously"; and "Cordelia Fine, a philosopher now notorious for trying to edit science to fit in with feminism".
She makes a very credible argument that much of the problem with "feminism" is that too many feminists have been "reluctant" -- to say the least -- to "take biology seriously".
Apropos of which, you might also be interested in Arty Morty's recent post on Lysenkoism and "gender ideology":
Unfortunately, or not, "gender ideology" is something of a Frankensteinian monster that is more or less the creation of feminism -- even if a large part of that is due to the "trans-mogrification" by transactivists. But that Lysenkoism is part and parcel of a great deal of feminism itself -- fairly decent elaboration by Arty, though I think he may have picked up the idea from my own earlier kick at that kitty following a comment of mine there:
In any case, quite agree with you on Reuter's piece as a significant "sign of change", a sea change in fact. Maybe not yet the beginning of the end, but maybe a resounding end to the beginning -- so to speak. 🙂
Although the email addresses for the authors of it are in the author's names so others here may wish to forward my letter or otherwise fire a shot across their bows ... 😉. Particularly as none of them have yet even acknowledged my letter.
But thanks muchly for allowing me to post the letter here. Had thought of posting it on my own Substack, but definitely more bang for the buck here, not to mention being more topical. 🙂
Great bunch of articles again, particular the Reuters story. Somewhat apropos of which, a letter to the reporters who wrote it that I've just sent which I'll post here if that's ok with you:
*****
Dear Chad Terhune, Robin Respaut, and Michelle Conlin,
I read through most of your recent article on “Youth in Transition”, and have to commend you and Thomson-Reuters for a fairly thorough and unbiased report on transgenderism, its promises and pitfalls. Particularly noteworthy for Thomson-Reuters being one of the few mainstream news sources so far willing to do so.
However, I think there are a number of “problematic” phrases used, both by yourselves and those you’ve interviewed that contributes to the confusion surrounding the whole issue, and probably thereby to the falsity of that promise. For an instance of the latter, there’s an oldish Slate article by Michelle Goldberg which interviewed a transwoman, Helen Highwater, who had this rather heart-rending description of that “falsity”:
"Yet [Highwater] has come to reject the idea that she is truly female or that she ever will be. Though 'trans women are women' has become a trans rights rallying cry, Highwater writes, it primes trans women for failure, disappointment, and cognitive dissonance. She calls it a 'vicious lie.' ...."
Transgender adolescents may well want to be perceived as members of the opposite sex, but the fact of the matter is that they won’t ever actually change their sexes. Society is basically being party to a fraud if they give any credence at all to the belief they can.
But first in those “problematic” phrases is this statement by one Dr. (?) Cole:
“Ryace is a very vibrant, well-adjusted young lady that just happened to be assigned male sex at birth,”
Rather depressing that a so-called doctor doesn’t realize that the definitions for “male” and “female” are foundational to pretty much all of biology, and are predicated on the possession of functional gonads of either of two types. For examples, see the Glossary in the article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, the Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, and the definitions for “male” and “female” from Oxford Dictionaries:
By which definitions, Ryace was still born male (sex) -- or assigned male as the sex he was likely to acquire at puberty -- because he was (probably) born with testicles, the type of gonads that more or less grant membership in the “male (sex)” category. But he won’t ever acquire the functional ovaries that would qualify him as a member of the female (sex) category. As much as he may desperately wish otherwise.
Which leads to your own “problematic” contribution to that confusion, i.e., “For adolescents transitioning to female, puberty blockers and hormones can complicate eventual genital surgery.”
Again, Ryace won’t ever “transition to female” because medical science has not (yet) advanced to the point of replacing his testicles with functioning ovaries of his own which is what would be required for him to qualify as a female (sex).
He may eventually LOOK like a female, and maybe that will be sufficient for him, and others in his position. But I expect we are doing him, and society in general, a serious disservice to give any hint that we think he has actually changed sex.
But part of that confusion – and the reason for my qualifying phrases “male (sex)”, and “female (sex)” – is that transgender activists are rather desperate to muddy the difference between sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (personalities and personality types) by redefining or “repurposing” “male” and “female” as genders. Why it might be wise if we were to qualify both terms, e.g., “male (sex)” versus “male (gender)”. But for instance, see the Wikipedia article on “Female” which states:
“Female is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction. ....
In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.”
But, as indicated, there is a profound difference between sex and gender, losing sight of which can cause no end of problems. For example, see this editorial in the British Medical Journal which clearly, and more or less accurately differentiates between the two, and emphasizes the urgent necessity of being clear on those differences:
That difference seems to be generally well understood in Britain and in a number of other Commonwealth countries, but, rather sadly, many people in the U.S. tend to view the terms “sex” and “gender” as synonymous. Which tends to compound the problem and confusion. Somewhat surprising since the late Justice Scalia, quoted in Wikipedia’s article on “Gender”, had a quite useful analogy differentiating between the two:
“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 is to male.”
As Justice Scalia suggested, we might be wise to reserve “male” and “female” as indicators of membership in the sex (reproductive) categories while using “masculine” and “feminine” for genders denoting secondary traits typical of “adult human males (sex)” and “adult human females (sex)”.
Quite a complex issue, and one can sincerely sympathize with the “distress” and dysphoria that many adolescents, in particular, have to endure. However, I rather doubt we’re helping them or society in general by being unclear on what it means to be male (sex) and female (sex). As Francis Bacon put it some 400 years ago, “Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways".
DETRANSITIONERS, DESISTERS, PARENTS, MEDICAL PROVIEDERS: see the end of the Reuter's article, even if you don't have time to read it all. "Do you have an experience with gender-affirming care to share as a patient, family member or medical provider? Share it with Reuters.https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tips/
You and Lee may be interested in knowing that Kara Dansky has had a post on the Reuters article as well:
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/shifts-in-the-media-but-were-not
Seems she too has contacted the authors, and one of them has responded accepting Dansky's "invitation to talk".
But it is absolutely astounding that -- as my open letter to them (here) emphasizes -- they have a completely different set of definitions in play for both sex and gender than does even Dansky - which are no great shakes in themselves.
Not sure of the prognosis for that talk if everyone is talking a different language - and nary a translator in sight ...
All voices and perspectives are important. There are many strands of truth. And in the gender wars, there are many fronts. As you know, many "gender critical" people have fervent red-line disagreements with each other about all manner of issues. No two detransitioners stories or views are exactly the same, but hearing about different experiences helps people form their views. A reporter's job is not to find out who is "right," but to dig in, investigate and let people decide for themselves. Less biased reporting will be beneficial for everyone.
For me, the biggest story with this Reuter's piece is that the crack is widening on what the mainstream media is willing to cover. That they are putting resources into it instead of just parroting what the Trevor Project or Jack Turban tells them is the truth. And that they are actively asking for people to contact them. It has been shameful that they will not report honestly and diligently as journalists and editors when there is no doubt that they have known about some of these unreported facts and perspectives for some time. It is because of every one of us working to get through to them in whatever ways we have been doing, anonymously or not. I for one am happy to see this article as a sign of change. It's the whole reason Lee and I envisioned the benefit of GC News, because we saw that without the media turning around, this madness would never turn around. Totally fine that you shared your letter here, it's great that you wrote to them yourself Steersman!
Quite agree on those "many strands of truth", although the grasp on those strands by many people is rather tenuous at best. 🙂
But hadn't run across many "fervent red-line disagreements" among "gender critical people". Although I am seeing increasing, but welcome evidence that more people, including many feminists are recognizing some degree of feminist culpability for much of the whole transgender clusterfuck -- excuse my French, but I'm not sure there's enough sugar on the planet to coat that rather bitter pill.
For instance and ICYMI, see Kathleen Stock's Welcome post where she argued that the "stupid story" [transgenderism] has reduced much of feminism to "risible absurdities"; why she's argued that feminism itself is in serious need of a "reboot":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/feminist-reboot-camp?s=r
Though she's a bit light on the details there, but her later argument -- that radfems are "barking (mad)" to want to "abolish gender" -- is more solid:
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
Exactly how and why that has come about is, no doubt, a rather contentious and convoluted topic of some depth, but more than a few justifiably argue -- including Stock in that last article -- that it's because far too many feminists are in serious denial about biology themselves. Apropos of which, you might be interested in a cogent review here of Louise Perry's book by Helen Dale, a review that Helen Joyce had touted in a tweet that had been posted here recently:
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
You might also be interested in my comments about Dale's review on her Substack, particularly about these zingers of hers:
"counterblast to the braindead feminism"; "sincere attempt to anchor feminism in reality"; "what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously"; and "Cordelia Fine, a philosopher now notorious for trying to edit science to fit in with feminism".
https://helendale.substack.com/p/around-the-traps-ii/comment/9517083
She makes a very credible argument that much of the problem with "feminism" is that too many feminists have been "reluctant" -- to say the least -- to "take biology seriously".
Apropos of which, you might also be interested in Arty Morty's recent post on Lysenkoism and "gender ideology":
https://artymorty.substack.com/p/lysenkoism-all-over-again
Unfortunately, or not, "gender ideology" is something of a Frankensteinian monster that is more or less the creation of feminism -- even if a large part of that is due to the "trans-mogrification" by transactivists. But that Lysenkoism is part and parcel of a great deal of feminism itself -- fairly decent elaboration by Arty, though I think he may have picked up the idea from my own earlier kick at that kitty following a comment of mine there:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
https://artymorty.substack.com/p/unforgivable/comment/8333014
In any case, quite agree with you on Reuter's piece as a significant "sign of change", a sea change in fact. Maybe not yet the beginning of the end, but maybe a resounding end to the beginning -- so to speak. 🙂
Although the email addresses for the authors of it are in the author's names so others here may wish to forward my letter or otherwise fire a shot across their bows ... 😉. Particularly as none of them have yet even acknowledged my letter.
But thanks muchly for allowing me to post the letter here. Had thought of posting it on my own Substack, but definitely more bang for the buck here, not to mention being more topical. 🙂
Great bunch of articles again, particular the Reuters story. Somewhat apropos of which, a letter to the reporters who wrote it that I've just sent which I'll post here if that's ok with you:
*****
Dear Chad Terhune, Robin Respaut, and Michelle Conlin,
I read through most of your recent article on “Youth in Transition”, and have to commend you and Thomson-Reuters for a fairly thorough and unbiased report on transgenderism, its promises and pitfalls. Particularly noteworthy for Thomson-Reuters being one of the few mainstream news sources so far willing to do so.
However, I think there are a number of “problematic” phrases used, both by yourselves and those you’ve interviewed that contributes to the confusion surrounding the whole issue, and probably thereby to the falsity of that promise. For an instance of the latter, there’s an oldish Slate article by Michelle Goldberg which interviewed a transwoman, Helen Highwater, who had this rather heart-rending description of that “falsity”:
"Yet [Highwater] has come to reject the idea that she is truly female or that she ever will be. Though 'trans women are women' has become a trans rights rallying cry, Highwater writes, it primes trans women for failure, disappointment, and cognitive dissonance. She calls it a 'vicious lie.' ...."
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/12/gender-critical-trans-women-the-apostates-of-the-trans-rights-movement.html
Transgender adolescents may well want to be perceived as members of the opposite sex, but the fact of the matter is that they won’t ever actually change their sexes. Society is basically being party to a fraud if they give any credence at all to the belief they can.
But first in those “problematic” phrases is this statement by one Dr. (?) Cole:
“Ryace is a very vibrant, well-adjusted young lady that just happened to be assigned male sex at birth,”
Rather depressing that a so-called doctor doesn’t realize that the definitions for “male” and “female” are foundational to pretty much all of biology, and are predicated on the possession of functional gonads of either of two types. For examples, see the Glossary in the article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, the Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, and the definitions for “male” and “female” from Oxford Dictionaries:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
By which definitions, Ryace was still born male (sex) -- or assigned male as the sex he was likely to acquire at puberty -- because he was (probably) born with testicles, the type of gonads that more or less grant membership in the “male (sex)” category. But he won’t ever acquire the functional ovaries that would qualify him as a member of the female (sex) category. As much as he may desperately wish otherwise.
Which leads to your own “problematic” contribution to that confusion, i.e., “For adolescents transitioning to female, puberty blockers and hormones can complicate eventual genital surgery.”
Again, Ryace won’t ever “transition to female” because medical science has not (yet) advanced to the point of replacing his testicles with functioning ovaries of his own which is what would be required for him to qualify as a female (sex).
He may eventually LOOK like a female, and maybe that will be sufficient for him, and others in his position. But I expect we are doing him, and society in general, a serious disservice to give any hint that we think he has actually changed sex.
But part of that confusion – and the reason for my qualifying phrases “male (sex)”, and “female (sex)” – is that transgender activists are rather desperate to muddy the difference between sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (personalities and personality types) by redefining or “repurposing” “male” and “female” as genders. Why it might be wise if we were to qualify both terms, e.g., “male (sex)” versus “male (gender)”. But for instance, see the Wikipedia article on “Female” which states:
“Female is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction. ....
In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
But, as indicated, there is a profound difference between sex and gender, losing sight of which can cause no end of problems. For example, see this editorial in the British Medical Journal which clearly, and more or less accurately differentiates between the two, and emphasizes the urgent necessity of being clear on those differences:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
That difference seems to be generally well understood in Britain and in a number of other Commonwealth countries, but, rather sadly, many people in the U.S. tend to view the terms “sex” and “gender” as synonymous. Which tends to compound the problem and confusion. Somewhat surprising since the late Justice Scalia, quoted in Wikipedia’s article on “Gender”, had a quite useful analogy differentiating between the two:
“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 is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
As Justice Scalia suggested, we might be wise to reserve “male” and “female” as indicators of membership in the sex (reproductive) categories while using “masculine” and “feminine” for genders denoting secondary traits typical of “adult human males (sex)” and “adult human females (sex)”.
Quite a complex issue, and one can sincerely sympathize with the “distress” and dysphoria that many adolescents, in particular, have to endure. However, I rather doubt we’re helping them or society in general by being unclear on what it means to be male (sex) and female (sex). As Francis Bacon put it some 400 years ago, “Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways".
Sincerely,
Jim Wiggins, AKA Steersman
CC: GC News: https://gcnews.substack.com/p/thursday-october-6-2022