So sex is not real, after all

 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.

Is there a point when these people stop and think "Am I the racist now?"

 If we judge by the out-roar at the election of a white woman as Miss Zimbabwe, the answer is no.

I mean, first of all, she is African. She is Zimbabwean. Her ancestors have been living there for a long period of time - she is not a "colonizer" any more, than an American Italian whose ancestors arrived in the 19th-20th century, or someone whose parents came over from Cuba in the '70s, is an immigrant. So no. She is part of that country. Denying it because of her skin color or her ancestry is racism. Unless you also agree that black, Asian, whatever people living in Europe can never be Europeans. I am sure a lot of Fascistic people would agree with you. Not sure this is your ideal company, but once you start thinking about progressive identity politics, you will find that there is a great deal of overlap between the two ideology.

Also.

She is a minority, so multiculturalism, representation, whatever should be a good thing. But apparently this is always a one-way street with these people. And in their wallowing of in their own victim-hood, which seems to be the cornerstone of their identity, while they eagerly import American-style identity politics, they simultaneously express the vilest racism directed at this woman. And this is perfectly fine,  which does not cause any cognitive dissonance.

Astonishing.

As a side-note: the fact that most of Africa is a shithole today with appalling living conditions for their inhabitants cannot be blamed on the evil white men any more.

Dawkins as an evil Rightwinger -did not take long...

 ...or a genius to see it coming.

Now poor boy became a nasty, evil, right-wing transphobe just for sticking with science.

 Wait, what? We can now criticize the new Star Wars movies?? Now we can admit that those evil fans who criticized were not racist and sexist pigs and all?*

 

*Again, a few vocal morons do not make a toxic fandom, otherwise feminism, trans activists, and literally every other group of people more than ten individuals would be in great trouble. But they were useful to dismiss valid criticism, weren't they?

 

Oh, I forgot. We do not go that far. In true Orwellian fashion we never did like the new Star Wars sequels. Also, Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't really good, either.

This is normally what happens. For some mysterious reason the "progressive" parts of the media absolutely stands beside extremely flawed movies, TV series because of the message they are forcing, and are useful for propagating their own culture wars fighting the evil White Patriarchy. The quality is irrelevant, the message matters. (Usually the forced message is the reason for the sh... questionable quality anyhow.) Part of it is the nature of the 'access media', but a large chunk of it is activism.

Some time passes, there are new outrages, so it is then becomes safe to actually admit that the work in question is actually sh... not very good, and has nothing to do with the original franchise/work it was adapted from. Now it is time to push the new stuff (like the new Snow White(ish), or the planned diverse Viking live action How to Train Your Dragon.) So the circle continues.

I guess it is The Wheel of Time's and the Rings of Power's turn now. I am sure we will see some articles in the mighty Guardian saying that the series strayed very far from the source material, and the character of Galadriel, is in fact, bad. You know, the very thing they called you a racist, sexist pig for.

Identity politics - political correctness

 Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS Lewis