I see your point and the parallel to deBoer's post (which I also liked), but as always, I'm going to continue to call out deBoer for his *absolute blind spot* when it comes to the screamingly obvious problems with gender identity and the hysterical reactions of the progressive left to those of us who point out those obvious problems. He has plenty of company in other Liberal Dudez, but I expect better of him.
I agree with Freddie a lot but it’s true he has a huge blind spot here. His post a few weeks back about how transgender identities are all real and valid but all trans racial ones (a la Rachel Dolezal) are all fraudulent grifters was disappointing coming from someone who’s usually such a careful thinker. It seems that despite all his contrarian tendencies, he still wants to toe the good liberal ally line on LGBT+ issues.
The more ridiculous the beliefs one must hold, the more loyal that person seems to their ideology. These are loyalty tests, not tests of intellectual merit. Back when humans lived in small tribes, freethinkers could proclaim to be correct all they wanted... before they were cast out of the tribe to die.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
Funny that you quote deBoer, since he is an absolute gender ideologue who brooks no dissent from his commenters, who must rigidly adhere to the ideology or be permanently banned. (As I was, for a a one-sentence comment supporting women's sex-based rights.)
Apr 21, 2023·edited Apr 21, 2023Liked by Yassine Meskhout
I agree, but let’s not pretend to be so mystified about this. Those of us who are experienced enough and honest enough can certainly attest to the presence of fragile intellects and collapsible arguments in every grouping of minds. This is just the latest example.
Reading -- skimming -- Byrne's screed reminds me of Nietzsche's quip about many if not most "philosophers": "they muddy the waters to make them seem deep" -- job security. A quip that fits Byrne & Lawford-Smith to a T.
Totally clueless that there are NO intrinsic meanings to any of our words -- "woman" and "female" in particular. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so no definitions qualify as gospel truth.
There is certainly some value in STIPULATING that "woman" means or denotes "adult human female (sex)". However, we might also define the term as "an adult human who has any passing resemblance to any adult human female (sex)" -- which corresponds, more or less, to what many take "woman (gender)" to mean.
But we might also define the term to denote "adult human vagina-haver" which is at least consistent with the definition of "female", in the context of plumbing and electrical connectors, as having a concave mating surface:
The point is that there are many different possible definitions for those terms, and the issue is which one is going to qualify as trump. However, not all definitions are created equal -- the issue then is, or should be, using reason and logic to adjudicate the different claims. Sadly the "debate" looks more like a Lilliputian civil war over egg (ova)-cracking protocols, a reprise of The Rape of the Lock saga (Part Deux): a bloody clown show with a cast of millions.
My read of Byrne's essay wasn't that words should have meaning etched in obsidian, but rather that their meaning should at least be somewhat coherent. Can you point to a passage you disagree with?
Yassine: "Can you point to a passage you disagree with?"
Byrne: "I gave six different arguments for the hypothesis that women are adult human females—in philosopher’s argot, 'S is a woman if, and only if, S is an adult human female' ...."
While he's quite correct that AHF is a hypothesis, he still gives every impression that he thinks that definition should qualify as gospel truth while giving little consideration to the essential point you took a run at in your generally credible and quite thorough Boston post:
Yassine: "The worker and his supervisor get distracted by the debate over definitions ... until the true purpose of the sorting job gets revealed ..."
Squabbling over definitions -- linguistic slap fights, as I think you put it -- while ignoring "the true purpose" seems rather akin to straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole.
Maybe moot what that purpose is, but the bottom line, so to speak, seems to be whether vagina-havers are entitled to spaces from which penis-havers are excluded.
Tricky process about creating definitions, but there is some rhyme and reason to it that most people -- including Byrne & company -- haven't got a clue about. Y'all might be interested in several of my kicks at that kitty:
I agree with your approach to definitions, and concur that many on the "biological sex" side are stumbling into pitfalls of their own making. In general, I find attempts to find the "one true definition" to be somewhat deluded, although there may be merit in attempting to cleave some coherency (see for example Tomas Bogardus' attempt: https://philarchive.org/rec/BOGWTT)
Yassine: "I realize we were thinking of different Byrne essays ..."
Sorry about that Chief. 🙂 But skimming through the GI one, it seems to me that Byrne is talking at cross-purposes with those he's quoting, that he simply doesn't realize that many TRAs and their fellow-travelers & "useful/less idiots" have very different definitions in mind for the relevant terms. For instance he quotes WPATH's "gender identity" definition thusly:
"A person’s intrinsic sense of being male (a boy or a man), female (a girl or woman), or an alternative gender (e.g., boygirl, girlboy, transgender, genderqueer, eunuch)."
Yet Byrne immediately follows that with:
"This raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps the word 'intrinsic' wasn’t meant to add much to 'sense,' but it does hint that I have a special access to my own sex that I don’t have to my other attributes."
Seems clear he sees both "male" & "female" -- and "man" and "woman" -- as sexes whereas WPATH & too many others see them as genders, as rough analogues to personalities & personality types. No wonder debate is impossible; why I often argue each of those words has to be qualified, e.g., "female (sex)" & "female (gender)".
But Merriam-Webster, in their definitions for the first pair, underline that ambiguity -- being charitable:
"female (adjective): 1a) of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs
1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"
Absolute idiots, not least because the corresponding 1b definition for "male" says "having a gender identity that is the opposite of female". "Circular Definitions R Us" 🙄
Yassine: "... stumbling into pitfalls of their own making."
Exactly, not least because, on the basis of the standard biological definitions -- which should qualify as trump, the "adult human female" definition for "woman" excludes "menopausees". Why I often argue that that AHF definition for "woman" is something of a poisoned chalice that women might be wise not to drink too deeply from.
Yassine: "... see for example Tomas Bogardus' attempt ..."
Sadly, all I can see is the Abstract and saw no apparent way to download the paper (since found). But there's a useful point therein:
"... and clearer view of why the Trans Inclusion Problem cannot, in fact, be solved. That’s primarily because, no matter what it means to be a woman, it’s one thing to be a woman, and another thing to identify as a woman."
Though I had made pretty much the same point some 3 years earlier on "Reality and Illusion: Being vs Identifying As"
However, I and Tomas may have missed a bet in not clearly specifying what "identifying as" really means; MacMillan Dictionary has an admirably succinct definition:
"identify as someone/something): to say that you belong to a particular group or category; to describe yourself as belonging to that group or category"
But one really can't claim to be a member of a category if one hasn't paid the "membership dues". Which, for the sexes and by the standard biological definitions, means having functional gonads of either of two types: no tickee, no washee.
Apropos of which, you in particular might appreciate Wikipedia's article on definitions:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
Just SAYING one is a member of a category really doesn't cut the mustard if one doesn't possess the "properties" that are a precondition "to be counted as a referent of the term".
Yassine: "I like your writing style btw :)"
Thanks. 🙂 And likewise -- quite enjoyed your Motte and Bailey guest post on, I think, Jesse Singal's Substack. Probably why I subscribed to your own -- and quite glad I did. 🙂 Critical thinking seems in short supply these days and it's always gratifying to find cogent examples of it.
> it seems to me that Byrne is talking at cross-purposes with those he's quoting, that he simply doesn't realize that many TRAs and their fellow-travelers & "useful/less idiots" have very different definitions in mind for the relevant terms
I think he realizes it. It's still helpful to extend the hand of charitability and allow people the space to explain themselves. That they still can't manage to provide any coherent response is all the more damning of a refutation.
> the "adult human female" definition for "woman" excludes "menopausees". Why I often argue that that AHF definition for "woman" is something of a poisoned chalice that women might be wise not to drink too deeply from.
100% agreed.
> Just SAYING one is a member of a category really doesn't cut the mustard if one doesn't possess the "properties" that are a precondition "to be counted as a referent of the term".
Agreed on this as well. I suspect the reason we get so little information about the "properties" is because they're entirely reliant on stereotypes and sound dumb when spoken out loud (e.g. "I'm a woman because I love shopping lol")
> extend the hand of charitability and allow people ...
My well of charitability is starting to run dry on this topic. Particularly as I'd written an email to Carole Hooven who is apparently Byrnes' wife on the topic, and had challenged Byrne himself on Twitter on related topics with no response in either case.
> I suspect the reason we get so little information about the "properties" is because they're entirely reliant on stereotypes and sound dumb when spoken out loud ...
Good point, certainly as it relates to your example of "woman", at least as a gender. But as a sex -- i.e., "adult human female" -- the property that qualifies as that "necessary and sufficient condition" is clear, singular, unambiguous, and objectively quantifiable, i.e., having functional ovaries.
Basically, many properties that are each sufficient to qualify one as a woman (gender), only one of which is necessary. Whereas there is only a single necessary AND sufficient condition to qualify one as a woman (sex), at least by standard biological definitions.
Basically, the dichotomy between polythetic and monothetic categories, respectively. You might have some interest in my elaborations on that dichotomy here 🙂:
The incoherency of Gender Ideology has been in the back of my mind for a while. Like there is a purported definition of gender, in the same way I could make up any concept and give attributes to what it means. But Gender Ideology takes that extremely poorly defined concept and makes all kinds of contradictory pronouncements on what we should do with regards to it.
It really seems to have replaced “People with Gender Dysphoria need help” with “People who say they are a thing are the thing and we should use medicine to make them the thing” as the reason for the medicalization of “trans” people.
How can a personal, subjective experience, such as being a woman trapped in a man's body, be translated into concrete laws and policies? How do we write laws based simply on what an individual declares and nothing more? More importantly, why are we obligated to rearrange the world and it's agreed upon assumptions, to accomodate a very small percentage of the population? They don't do this for dwarves or little people, yet they have actual physical, proveable differences that demand consideration more so than the nebulous, "I think, therefore I am" proclamations of the trans group. It doesn't make sense, bc it's nonsense. I refuse to play along, as every rational person should, especially the medical profession. Remember your oath, gentlemen/women.
Seems good for freedom; decoupling medicine from the concept of "healing" people to a more general one - putting them into the state they want... approximately. To the extent possible. In the end, it's just hormones and plastic surgery.
Both should be available, same as with psychoactive substances of all kinds. Cognitive liberty is good. "Society" certainly shouldn't control what others do with their bodies. People might refuse to associate with them on such basis if they care. Ofc, social manipulators could in turn use threats of ostracization against such people...
I agree with decoupling and for greater individual autonomy in general. Maybe the "best" justification I encountered for gender ideology is that this is just the best available societal framework we have to deal with how drugs and surgery are dispensed; we *have* to play into this incoherent narrative so that doctors and insurance companies are sated.
Fuck the doctors and their partners in crime, the insurance companies. Fuck the entire western medical monolith. It's done more harm than good, precisely as it was designed to do.
If that's where we're headed, I suppose we'll be forced to follow, but will this modification be confined to "trained medical professionals"? Sounds like just another scam by Big Pharma/Medico. JUST hormones and surgery? Individuals should control what they allow mad scientists to inflict upon them. These professionals are NOT your friends...you are just another cash cow to them. But as a society, we must stand firm in not allowing this questionable experimentation to touch minors. PERIOD.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
This is entirely off-topic, and almost certainly outside your area of legal expertise, but I (a lawyer myself) am mystified by the back-and-forth between Disney and Ron DeSantis. I keep reading articles from different sides of the political fence, with both parties repeatedly declaring victory over one hyper-technical point after another, while the articles rarely describe what has actually happened, what it actually means, and what options remain available to the belligerents.
This dispute isn’t actually very important, but my inability to find a trustworthy account of the actual events has frustrated me considerably.
I have profoundly mixed feelings about the whole thing. I understand DeSantis’ attack as a prima facie 1st Amendment violation, but I despise the turn to wokeness in all its forms, and in children’s entertainment it seems especially pernicious.
I almost wrote a post explaining the Rule Against Perpetuities but that legal slap fight moves way too fast and changes at each turn. My own stance on the issue is simple: DeSantis is engaging in blatant state retaliation because a corporation said things he didn't like. There is no universe where I would cheer the government's muzzle, for the same reasons I outlined above in this very post.
Contemplate Confucius and the Rectification Of Names.
Short version: "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be".
I see your point and the parallel to deBoer's post (which I also liked), but as always, I'm going to continue to call out deBoer for his *absolute blind spot* when it comes to the screamingly obvious problems with gender identity and the hysterical reactions of the progressive left to those of us who point out those obvious problems. He has plenty of company in other Liberal Dudez, but I expect better of him.
Dear Natalie, there is intention behind my actions.
like, duh
I agree with Freddie a lot but it’s true he has a huge blind spot here. His post a few weeks back about how transgender identities are all real and valid but all trans racial ones (a la Rachel Dolezal) are all fraudulent grifters was disappointing coming from someone who’s usually such a careful thinker. It seems that despite all his contrarian tendencies, he still wants to toe the good liberal ally line on LGBT+ issues.
Or maybe he just disagrees?
Just cuz he agrees with one "contrarian "opinion doesn't mean he has to agree with them all
You can expect better, but you won't get better.
The more ridiculous the beliefs one must hold, the more loyal that person seems to their ideology. These are loyalty tests, not tests of intellectual merit. Back when humans lived in small tribes, freethinkers could proclaim to be correct all they wanted... before they were cast out of the tribe to die.
Lucky if being cast out was all that happened to the freethinkers.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
* cross-posted from article comments.
Funny that you quote deBoer, since he is an absolute gender ideologue who brooks no dissent from his commenters, who must rigidly adhere to the ideology or be permanently banned. (As I was, for a a one-sentence comment supporting women's sex-based rights.)
Maybe I quoted deBoer for a reason 😉
I agree, but let’s not pretend to be so mystified about this. Those of us who are experienced enough and honest enough can certainly attest to the presence of fragile intellects and collapsible arguments in every grouping of minds. This is just the latest example.
Reading -- skimming -- Byrne's screed reminds me of Nietzsche's quip about many if not most "philosophers": "they muddy the waters to make them seem deep" -- job security. A quip that fits Byrne & Lawford-Smith to a T.
Totally clueless that there are NO intrinsic meanings to any of our words -- "woman" and "female" in particular. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so no definitions qualify as gospel truth.
There is certainly some value in STIPULATING that "woman" means or denotes "adult human female (sex)". However, we might also define the term as "an adult human who has any passing resemblance to any adult human female (sex)" -- which corresponds, more or less, to what many take "woman (gender)" to mean.
But we might also define the term to denote "adult human vagina-haver" which is at least consistent with the definition of "female", in the context of plumbing and electrical connectors, as having a concave mating surface:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
The point is that there are many different possible definitions for those terms, and the issue is which one is going to qualify as trump. However, not all definitions are created equal -- the issue then is, or should be, using reason and logic to adjudicate the different claims. Sadly the "debate" looks more like a Lilliputian civil war over egg (ova)-cracking protocols, a reprise of The Rape of the Lock saga (Part Deux): a bloody clown show with a cast of millions.
I completely agree that there are no intrinsic meanings to any of our words. I wrote about exactly this issue in the context of gender identity here: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/what-boston-can-teach-us-about-what
My read of Byrne's essay wasn't that words should have meaning etched in obsidian, but rather that their meaning should at least be somewhat coherent. Can you point to a passage you disagree with?
Yassine: "Can you point to a passage you disagree with?"
Byrne: "I gave six different arguments for the hypothesis that women are adult human females—in philosopher’s argot, 'S is a woman if, and only if, S is an adult human female' ...."
While he's quite correct that AHF is a hypothesis, he still gives every impression that he thinks that definition should qualify as gospel truth while giving little consideration to the essential point you took a run at in your generally credible and quite thorough Boston post:
Yassine: "The worker and his supervisor get distracted by the debate over definitions ... until the true purpose of the sorting job gets revealed ..."
Squabbling over definitions -- linguistic slap fights, as I think you put it -- while ignoring "the true purpose" seems rather akin to straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole.
Maybe moot what that purpose is, but the bottom line, so to speak, seems to be whether vagina-havers are entitled to spaces from which penis-havers are excluded.
Tricky process about creating definitions, but there is some rhyme and reason to it that most people -- including Byrne & company -- haven't got a clue about. Y'all might be interested in several of my kicks at that kitty:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
I realize we were thinking of different Byrne essays, I was referring to the one on gender identity: https://medium.com/arc-digital/what-is-gender-identity-10ce0da71999
I agree with your approach to definitions, and concur that many on the "biological sex" side are stumbling into pitfalls of their own making. In general, I find attempts to find the "one true definition" to be somewhat deluded, although there may be merit in attempting to cleave some coherency (see for example Tomas Bogardus' attempt: https://philarchive.org/rec/BOGWTT)
I like your writing style btw :)
Yassine: "I realize we were thinking of different Byrne essays ..."
Sorry about that Chief. 🙂 But skimming through the GI one, it seems to me that Byrne is talking at cross-purposes with those he's quoting, that he simply doesn't realize that many TRAs and their fellow-travelers & "useful/less idiots" have very different definitions in mind for the relevant terms. For instance he quotes WPATH's "gender identity" definition thusly:
"A person’s intrinsic sense of being male (a boy or a man), female (a girl or woman), or an alternative gender (e.g., boygirl, girlboy, transgender, genderqueer, eunuch)."
Yet Byrne immediately follows that with:
"This raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps the word 'intrinsic' wasn’t meant to add much to 'sense,' but it does hint that I have a special access to my own sex that I don’t have to my other attributes."
Seems clear he sees both "male" & "female" -- and "man" and "woman" -- as sexes whereas WPATH & too many others see them as genders, as rough analogues to personalities & personality types. No wonder debate is impossible; why I often argue each of those words has to be qualified, e.g., "female (sex)" & "female (gender)".
But Merriam-Webster, in their definitions for the first pair, underline that ambiguity -- being charitable:
"female (adjective): 1a) of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs
1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
Absolute idiots, not least because the corresponding 1b definition for "male" says "having a gender identity that is the opposite of female". "Circular Definitions R Us" 🙄
Yassine: "... stumbling into pitfalls of their own making."
Exactly, not least because, on the basis of the standard biological definitions -- which should qualify as trump, the "adult human female" definition for "woman" excludes "menopausees". Why I often argue that that AHF definition for "woman" is something of a poisoned chalice that women might be wise not to drink too deeply from.
Yassine: "... see for example Tomas Bogardus' attempt ..."
Sadly, all I can see is the Abstract and saw no apparent way to download the paper (since found). But there's a useful point therein:
"... and clearer view of why the Trans Inclusion Problem cannot, in fact, be solved. That’s primarily because, no matter what it means to be a woman, it’s one thing to be a woman, and another thing to identify as a woman."
Though I had made pretty much the same point some 3 years earlier on "Reality and Illusion: Being vs Identifying As"
https://medium.com/@steersmann/reality-and-illusion-being-vs-identifying-as-77f9618b17c7
However, I and Tomas may have missed a bet in not clearly specifying what "identifying as" really means; MacMillan Dictionary has an admirably succinct definition:
"identify as someone/something): to say that you belong to a particular group or category; to describe yourself as belonging to that group or category"
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/identify-as
But one really can't claim to be a member of a category if one hasn't paid the "membership dues". Which, for the sexes and by the standard biological definitions, means having functional gonads of either of two types: no tickee, no washee.
Apropos of which, you in particular might appreciate Wikipedia's article on definitions:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
Just SAYING one is a member of a category really doesn't cut the mustard if one doesn't possess the "properties" that are a precondition "to be counted as a referent of the term".
Yassine: "I like your writing style btw :)"
Thanks. 🙂 And likewise -- quite enjoyed your Motte and Bailey guest post on, I think, Jesse Singal's Substack. Probably why I subscribed to your own -- and quite glad I did. 🙂 Critical thinking seems in short supply these days and it's always gratifying to find cogent examples of it.
> it seems to me that Byrne is talking at cross-purposes with those he's quoting, that he simply doesn't realize that many TRAs and their fellow-travelers & "useful/less idiots" have very different definitions in mind for the relevant terms
I think he realizes it. It's still helpful to extend the hand of charitability and allow people the space to explain themselves. That they still can't manage to provide any coherent response is all the more damning of a refutation.
> the "adult human female" definition for "woman" excludes "menopausees". Why I often argue that that AHF definition for "woman" is something of a poisoned chalice that women might be wise not to drink too deeply from.
100% agreed.
> Just SAYING one is a member of a category really doesn't cut the mustard if one doesn't possess the "properties" that are a precondition "to be counted as a referent of the term".
Agreed on this as well. I suspect the reason we get so little information about the "properties" is because they're entirely reliant on stereotypes and sound dumb when spoken out loud (e.g. "I'm a woman because I love shopping lol")
> extend the hand of charitability and allow people ...
My well of charitability is starting to run dry on this topic. Particularly as I'd written an email to Carole Hooven who is apparently Byrnes' wife on the topic, and had challenged Byrne himself on Twitter on related topics with no response in either case.
> I suspect the reason we get so little information about the "properties" is because they're entirely reliant on stereotypes and sound dumb when spoken out loud ...
Good point, certainly as it relates to your example of "woman", at least as a gender. But as a sex -- i.e., "adult human female" -- the property that qualifies as that "necessary and sufficient condition" is clear, singular, unambiguous, and objectively quantifiable, i.e., having functional ovaries.
Basically, many properties that are each sufficient to qualify one as a woman (gender), only one of which is necessary. Whereas there is only a single necessary AND sufficient condition to qualify one as a woman (sex), at least by standard biological definitions.
Basically, the dichotomy between polythetic and monothetic categories, respectively. You might have some interest in my elaborations on that dichotomy here 🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
The incoherency of Gender Ideology has been in the back of my mind for a while. Like there is a purported definition of gender, in the same way I could make up any concept and give attributes to what it means. But Gender Ideology takes that extremely poorly defined concept and makes all kinds of contradictory pronouncements on what we should do with regards to it.
It really seems to have replaced “People with Gender Dysphoria need help” with “People who say they are a thing are the thing and we should use medicine to make them the thing” as the reason for the medicalization of “trans” people.
How can a personal, subjective experience, such as being a woman trapped in a man's body, be translated into concrete laws and policies? How do we write laws based simply on what an individual declares and nothing more? More importantly, why are we obligated to rearrange the world and it's agreed upon assumptions, to accomodate a very small percentage of the population? They don't do this for dwarves or little people, yet they have actual physical, proveable differences that demand consideration more so than the nebulous, "I think, therefore I am" proclamations of the trans group. It doesn't make sense, bc it's nonsense. I refuse to play along, as every rational person should, especially the medical profession. Remember your oath, gentlemen/women.
Seems good for freedom; decoupling medicine from the concept of "healing" people to a more general one - putting them into the state they want... approximately. To the extent possible. In the end, it's just hormones and plastic surgery.
Both should be available, same as with psychoactive substances of all kinds. Cognitive liberty is good. "Society" certainly shouldn't control what others do with their bodies. People might refuse to associate with them on such basis if they care. Ofc, social manipulators could in turn use threats of ostracization against such people...
I agree with decoupling and for greater individual autonomy in general. Maybe the "best" justification I encountered for gender ideology is that this is just the best available societal framework we have to deal with how drugs and surgery are dispensed; we *have* to play into this incoherent narrative so that doctors and insurance companies are sated.
Fuck the doctors and their partners in crime, the insurance companies. Fuck the entire western medical monolith. It's done more harm than good, precisely as it was designed to do.
If that's where we're headed, I suppose we'll be forced to follow, but will this modification be confined to "trained medical professionals"? Sounds like just another scam by Big Pharma/Medico. JUST hormones and surgery? Individuals should control what they allow mad scientists to inflict upon them. These professionals are NOT your friends...you are just another cash cow to them. But as a society, we must stand firm in not allowing this questionable experimentation to touch minors. PERIOD.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
This is entirely off-topic, and almost certainly outside your area of legal expertise, but I (a lawyer myself) am mystified by the back-and-forth between Disney and Ron DeSantis. I keep reading articles from different sides of the political fence, with both parties repeatedly declaring victory over one hyper-technical point after another, while the articles rarely describe what has actually happened, what it actually means, and what options remain available to the belligerents.
This dispute isn’t actually very important, but my inability to find a trustworthy account of the actual events has frustrated me considerably.
I have profoundly mixed feelings about the whole thing. I understand DeSantis’ attack as a prima facie 1st Amendment violation, but I despise the turn to wokeness in all its forms, and in children’s entertainment it seems especially pernicious.
I almost wrote a post explaining the Rule Against Perpetuities but that legal slap fight moves way too fast and changes at each turn. My own stance on the issue is simple: DeSantis is engaging in blatant state retaliation because a corporation said things he didn't like. There is no universe where I would cheer the government's muzzle, for the same reasons I outlined above in this very post.
Contemplate Confucius and the Rectification Of Names.
Short version: "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be".