Well, that was quite an essay for a first kick at the kitty. 🙂 But I’m sorry to hear of the grief you’re having with a transgender daughter; the cult of gender ideology is wreaking far too many families and causing untold amounts of quite unnecessary grief and animosity.
Moot exactly how and why that state of affairs has come to pass, but a large part of the reason seems to be that much of that ideology is scientific claptrap and incoherent twaddle. Maybe not surprising then in that situation that it should be characterized by a “magico-spiritual undertone” and be seen as little more than the “merging of science, magic, and religion" – as Sahar Sadjadi of the University of McGill once put it:
Given its affinities with religion it is not surprising then that so many of its proponents look more like religious zealots than not.
But I quite agree with your apparent use of “masculinity” and “femininity” as genders in contradistinction to “male” and “female” as sexes. As the late Justice Scalia once put it:
“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.”
Part of the problem is that too many if not most transactivists are desperate to muddy the waters, to blur, distort or disappear entirely the distinction between sex and gender so they try to “repurpose” “male” and “female” as genders; an egregious fraud, an odious bait-and-switch.
In any case, a complex issue that I think is partly due to too many people not having a good handle on the science, biology, and philosophy undergirding the “debate”. Something that I’ve tried to rectify in some of my posts that you might have some interest in:
Well, that was quite an essay for a first kick at the kitty. 🙂 But I’m sorry to hear of the grief you’re having with a transgender daughter; the cult of gender ideology is wreaking far too many families and causing untold amounts of quite unnecessary grief and animosity.
Moot exactly how and why that state of affairs has come to pass, but a large part of the reason seems to be that much of that ideology is scientific claptrap and incoherent twaddle. Maybe not surprising then in that situation that it should be characterized by a “magico-spiritual undertone” and be seen as little more than the “merging of science, magic, and religion" – as Sahar Sadjadi of the University of McGill once put it:
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430
Given its affinities with religion it is not surprising then that so many of its proponents look more like religious zealots than not.
But I quite agree with your apparent use of “masculinity” and “femininity” as genders in contradistinction to “male” and “female” as sexes. As the late Justice Scalia once put it:
“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
Part of the problem is that too many if not most transactivists are desperate to muddy the waters, to blur, distort or disappear entirely the distinction between sex and gender so they try to “repurpose” “male” and “female” as genders; an egregious fraud, an odious bait-and-switch.
In any case, a complex issue that I think is partly due to too many people not having a good handle on the science, biology, and philosophy undergirding the “debate”. Something that I’ve tried to rectify in some of my posts that you might have some interest in:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/i/64264079/gender
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman