Keira Bell’s Case is Unfreezing News Media that Have Been Reluctant to Discuss Rampant Transgendering of Teenaged Girls

The legal proceedings regarding Keira Bell are forcing the reluctant news media to begin discussing this serious issue regarding a vulnerable population of teenage girls being cajoled into harsh medical treatment for undiagnosed gender dysphoria. The silence of the news media has found synergy with bad science and dangerous medical practices.  Here's an excerpt from Quillette article titled "Like It Or Not, Keira Bell Has Opened Up a Real Conversation About Gender Dysphoria":

The policy reckoning we are now beginning to observe has been a long time coming. And Ms. Bell’s role is an important one, as trans activists have long sought to discredit or ignore the growing ranks of desisters—those, such as Ms. Bell, who once presented sincerely as trans, but later reverted to an identity consistent with their real biological sex. Even media that formerly had toed the progressive line on the issue of gender dysphoria are now finding the courage to run articles about vulnerable girls—many of them autistic, depressed, or socially insecure—who suffer regret after a period of trans self-identification.

Continue ReadingKeira Bell’s Case is Unfreezing News Media that Have Been Reluctant to Discuss Rampant Transgendering of Teenaged Girls

Race Conscious “Solution” to the Limited Supply of COVID Vaccines

I've often argued that we need to refocus, to consciously move back toward the central mission of Martin Luther King:

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

~From MLK's “I have a dream” speech

It's distressing to see so many loud voices arguing for the opposite, demanding that we need to become ever more conscious of "race" and claiming that we have made no meaningful progress since the Civil War or since the early 1960s.

Basing anything on "race" is always a massively erroneous and ultimately destructive miscategorization.  It will lead to endless strife and mistrust because "race" tells us nothing meaningful about any of the people with whom we share this planet. There is only one way to get to know each other: Taking the time to learn about each other, one at a time. Using "race" as a proxy as a shortcut for this hard work is inevitably destructive. In its simplistic detachment from real-world facts, sorting people based on "color" is akin to basing public policy on phrenology or astrology.

The above is a short prelude for a recent proposal regarding prioritizing people for the COVID vaccine, pointed out by Andrew Sullivan:

Continue ReadingRace Conscious “Solution” to the Limited Supply of COVID Vaccines

Anti-Woke Artists to the Rescue?

Woke-thought, especially in the form of Critical Race Theory, has drilled deeply into many of our primary sense-making institutions: schools, government, corporations and news media.  Cancel culture is its enforcement arm as you can read in many places including this website. Wokesters refuse to subject their ideas to public scrutiny, as Coleman Hughes recently discovered.  How do we turn this ship around?  How do we publicly and effectively shame people whose version of morality is to shove each other into color categories and treat some of those colors with scorn?

How do we pressure those who espouse these types of principles? Is there an end in sight?

James Lindsay, who created the above graphic (and who created the website New Discourses) recently wrote an article titled, "Wokeness will bring a second Renaissance," in which he argues that artists have just about had their fill of all of this political correctness:

What is it that artists across the arts have had enough of? Woke colonization. Woke censorship. Woke culture. Woke hegemony. Woke complaining. Woke negativity about everything. Wokeness. Period.

Artists are telling me more and more frequently that they’ve had it with Woke control over their professions and their outlets. This is an interesting circumstance because artists who feel silenced, repressed, controlled, and dominated will, as reliably as day follows night in the morning, begin to produce incredible works of powerful, defiant, and subversive art. They will make art that will communicate the injustice of this oppression in a way that does something no amount of intellectual explaining can possibly do. They will make art to connect with people—and to connect people to the oppression they sense but don’t know how to make sense of. . . . What I’m hearing from artists is a cry to produce the beautiful again. The stirring. The unsettling. The hilarious. To get out of this stifling environment and throw off stagnation.

James argues that art is organic and artists are unstoppable. He believes that help is on the way in the form of art..

I'm more than ready for this to happen.

Continue ReadingAnti-Woke Artists to the Rescue?

Planned Parenthood Falsely Suggests that Doctors “Assign” a Baby’s Sex at Birth

In his recent article, "Is Sex 'Assigned' at Birth?," evolutionary biologist Colin Wright criticizes Planned Parenthood's claims that a doctor "assigns" a baby's sex at the time of birth. As Wright points out, a doctor merely notices and reports the baby's sex. Planned Parenthood's website makes as much sense as claiming that an obstetrician "assigns" a baby's two-leggedness or "assigns" the eye color of a newborn.

There's good reason to believe that Planned Parenthood intentionally misused the word "assign," given that this word appears 19 times on Planned Parenthood's highly problematic webpage, "Sex and Gender Identity." Here is an excerpt:

Sex is a label — male or female — that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate . . . . Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision for someone else. The assignment of a biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify.

Wright's article is a patient and focused response to yet another instance where activists are attempting to use ideology to rewrite biology. Wright's counter-measure consists of serving up the kind of accurate biology lesson that most high school science teachers have uncontroversially delivered over many decades. That lesson goes something like this: "Here's a male mouse. Notice the penis. Here's a female mouse. Notice the vagina. Here's a diagram of a male human and a female human. Same thing. Quiz tomorrow."

Real-life biology is something that many Critical Justice Activists have self-trained themselves to find irrelevant. They also find real-life biology incomplete--those biology books keep forgetting to talk about feelings when they discuss gonads! Many of today's Woke students don't like hearing any blunt talk that they are human animals or that it is Nature (not a doctor) that calls the shots regard to a baby's sex. Wright explains:

The claim that biological sex is “assigned at birth” is very misleading as it draws a false equivalence between transgender and intersex people, and suggests that identity, as opposed to reproductive anatomy, defines one’s biological sex.

Rather than being “assigned” at birth, sex is simply recorded at birth using genitalia as a very reliable predictor of underlying gonad type. The fact that doctors, on very rare occasions, are wrong in their assessment does not therefore immediately call everyone’s sex into question.

Planned Parenthood employs many highly educated and careful writers, so the wording on its website was not an accident. Planned Parenthood consciously decided to use the word "assigned" to falsely suggest that arrogant doctors steeped in scientism shoot from the hip whenever they designate a baby's sex. That's how I read their ideologically-laced webpage. They take this position despite the fact that the sex of almost every baby is determined about nine months prior to the birth. And once the baby is born, figuring out whether Nature chose pink versus blue is truly simple. Truly, a doctor merely needs to take a quick look. This process of sexing was perfected thousands of years before the patriarchy got around to inventing the multitudes of modern baby doctors, those people who arrogantly determine one's sex by looking at gonads.

I can feel Wright's frustration as he spells out the facts of life for activists (as well as for those of us who are unnerved by the vocal Woke mobs). This effort by Wright is merely the most recent of a series of basic sex-ed lessons he has been offering (see also here and here). It's unfortunate that any of his articles were necessary, but I'm relieved to see that he is out there offering accurate biology bit by bit, to try to keep us all on the rails.

What is my main reason for writing this article? Because new parents should never be made to feel any hesitation or shame when they announce "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" We have all heard many people announcing and celebrating the sex of their newborns. On every occasion that I've heard such an announcement, I'm certain that there was no hint of any animosity toward people who have undergone the process of transgendering. Announcing a baby's sex is always a perfectly appropriate thing to do, no footnotes and no asterisks needed. These joyous moments have no relevance to the hyper-sensitive feelings of transgender activists. In fact, if there were activists in my presence right now, I would urge them to each put one finger in one their own ears so the following information might stick: "When new parents joyously exclaim 'It's a girl!', this is an undeniable biological fact that has absolutely nothing to do with you. It's about the baby."

Since Planned Parenthood twice mentioned "intersex" on the above webpage, it's worth asking how often doctors get it wrong when they tell the parents what sex they have observed in the newborn baby. The answer: almost never. As Wright discusses, the reproductive anatomy of a baby is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Many activists seem to think that it is insensitive to bluntly announce the sex of a baby because of "intersex." They claim this even when only 2 out of 10,000 newborns are diagnosed with intersex conditions. They claim this despite the fact that intersex conditions have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of transgendering. I suspect that transgender activists keep bringing up intersex conditions because it confuses and extends what would otherwise be swift endings to bad arguments.

Planned Parenthood, an organization claiming an expertise in medical matters, needs to get its medical facts right, then revise its webpage accordingly. There's a lot of work to do. One thing they desperately need to be add is this: For the great majority of people, biological sex robustly aligns with gender. This fact is not something shameful, insensitive or mean-spirited. It accurately describes most human beings, except in Planned Parenthood's namby-pamby world of biology where this is a fact that must not be uttered. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingPlanned Parenthood Falsely Suggests that Doctors “Assign” a Baby’s Sex at Birth

Helen Pluckrose Discusses the Need to Push Back Against Critical Social Justice Activism (Woke-ness)

Earlier this year, British author Helen Pluckrose, also the Editor-in-Chief of Areo Magazine, co-authored a new book, Cynical Threories, with James Lindsay, who is the creator of the anti-woke website New Discourses.  The long title to their book is also their compact thesis: Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody.  

Pluckrose was recently interviewed by Jason Hill of Quillette. The topic was the brand of postmodernism embraced by modern Critical Social Justice activists. In recent years CSJ's version of postmodernism has been increasingly employed as a political strategy by the Woke Left.  What is "postmodernism"?  Pluckrose offers these four characteristics:

  1. Objective knowledge is inaccessible and what we consider knowledge is actually just a cultural construct that operates in the service of power.
  2. Dominant groups in society—wealthy, white, heterosexual, western men—get to decide what is and isn’t legitimate knowledge and this becomes dominant discourses which are then accepted by the general population who perpetuate oppressive power dynamics like white supremacy, patriarchy, imperialism, heteronormativity, cisnormativity, ableism, and fatphobia.
  3. The critical theorists exist to deconstruct these discourses and make their oppressive nature visible. This results in the breakdown of boundaries and categories through which we understand things like emotion and reason, fact and fiction, male and female.
  4. [Critical theorists] also produce a profound cultural relativism and a neurotic focus on language and language policing as well as a rejection of individuality and humanism in favor of identity politics. This is a problem because of the resulting threats to freedom of belief and speech, the divisive tribalism and the rejection of science, reason and liberalism.

Hill asked Pluckrose why it was necessary for Lindsay and Pluckrose to write Cynical Theories at this time? Pluckrose offered this response:

Continue ReadingHelen Pluckrose Discusses the Need to Push Back Against Critical Social Justice Activism (Woke-ness)