One of the core tenet of trans activists, feminists, (gender studies) scholars, etc. is that sex is a biological category (and you use the terms male and female), gender is a social one (with the terms woman and man), and the two are not really connected.
So as a trans woman, you are only changing your gender, not sex. According to them.
Except when you are not. (Gender reassignment surgery is also called sex-reassignment surgery for the very simple reason of actually transforming one set of nasties into another set. So we are getting confused already.)
So sex, apparently, is still a real category. (And the lines are blurred because of the existence of medical conditions, which is an idiocy on its own, but that is for another post.)
Except when it is not.
And now the "scientific community" appears to be agreeing, too.
So let me get this straight.
Anthropology, as a whole, denies the existence of biological sex. And forbids the conversation about it, because this is how the scientific method works. In the 21th century. I mean it is surprisingly similar to how the Church dealt with inconvenient issues in the past (just ask Galileo), but to see it from a progressive, liberal institution devoted for exploring our world... I mean I am not surprised because this whole ideology is based on, what are essentially, lies and the ability of the establishment to silence dissent, but this is surprisingly open and brash.
It is also quite ironic since the Left is constantly bashing the Right about being anti-intellectual and anti-science, which is absolutely true, but the whole accusation is kind of ironic when we see the anti-science tendencies of their own displayed this way.
Another issue I would like to mention is the difficulties of actually arguing against this ideology based on logic, since it seems like it lacks coherence. Proponent use words to mean different things even within their own ideology, so every time you try to point out the logical issues of that particular statement, they can freely point to a different use of the same words claiming that that is the real meaning of the term. Like the point about sex being a binary (as it used to be treated by trans activists) or being a spectrum. You can still hear both, so whichever statement you take to argue against, they can simply point to the other. And then do the very same process when you start chipping off the foundations of the new context. This is also part of what Dawkins is talking about when he discusses how language is used by these people. What I suspect is going on is that the ideology is constantly changing, constantly moving the goalposts, so it cannot be effectively argued against. After all, there is no such thing as objective reality as we know.
