Culture Wars, Features, Regressive Left

Trans Activists’ Campaign Against ‘TERFs’ has Become an Attack on Science

In a recent article for Forbes, The Vaccination Debacle,I discussed the frightening rise in the number of European measles cases. The reason for the spike is simple: Fed a daily online diet of nonsense and ideologically motivated activism, many people have come to reject mainstream medical science—including the science behind vaccinations. You’d think that “get vaccinated” would be a relatively straightforward message. But in the days following the article’s publication, I received a good dozen emails from doctors thanking me for writing the piece, and describing how difficult it has become to convince some patients that their local paediatrician isn’t part of an international conspiracy.

But at least the effort to push back against anti-vaccination conspiracy theories is seen as a respectable form of discourse. In other spheres, it’s not so easy to speak common sense.

Consider, for instance, last year’s saga involving Rebecca Tuvel—who was hounded by trans activists and scholars after applying a theoretical application of transgender ideology to the idea of “trans-racialism.” Scandalously, the article in question was edited post facto so as to remove the name “Bruce Jenner”—in response to the claim that these two words served to “dead-name” the person now known as Caitlyn Jenner (despite the fact that Caitlyn Jenner herself repeatedly refers to “Bruce” in interviews). To cite the historically verifiable fact that someone named Bruce Jenner once existed is now seen as a sort of religious heresy. And like all heresies, it must be ritualistically expunged—not because it is factually wrong, but because it is seen as morally wrong.

In August, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island was criticized for removing a news release about a peer-reviewed study published in PLoS One by one of its academics—Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher at Brown’s School of Public Health. Littman’s article, titled Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports, discusses the phenomenon by which social media and peer pressure seem to have fuelled the recently observed trend by which young teenagers (typically girls) suddenly declare themselves transgender. The paper infuriated transgender activists, who claim that the entire notion of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a transphobic invention. Both Brown and PLoS One also were attacked as Brown’s enablers.

While no one could offer any evidence that Littman’s results were wrong, PLoS One issued a statement acknowledging the complaints about the study, and promising “further expert assessment on the study’s content and methodology.” Meanwhile, the dean of the School of Public Health, Bess H. Marcus, claimed that concerns over methodology had incited the university to remove the news article from the university’s web site. She added that members of the university community members had “express[ed] concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” In other words, Marcus is worried that facts might be used to undermine ideologically hallowed “perspectives”—also known as “opinions.”

As former Harvard Medical School dean Jeffrey Flier noted in Quillette, the whole spectacle raises important issues of academic freedom at Brown. But it also symbolizes how severely transgender activism has undermined the efforts of clinicians and researchers who have sought to investigate the issue of gender dysphoria. There is perhaps no other area of human behaviour where ideologically motivated actors have been so successful in creating what are in effect no-go zones for academics, and even for facts themselves.

Another case study may be found in Kenneth Zucker’s work on desistance among children afflicted with gender dysphoria at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Following a lengthy misinformation campaign against Zucker, the transgender lobby was successful in having him fired in 2015, notwithstanding his status as a leading researcher in the field. In that same year, bioethicist and Northwestern University historian Alice Dreger published her book Galileo’s Middle Finger, which analysed the case of Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism (2003). Bailey’s thoughtcrimes were contained in his review of the work of Canadian-born sexologist Ray Blanchard, who has argued that there are two types of male-to-female transsexualism: one being a deflected form of homosexuality and the other being an expression of a paraphilia known as autogynephilia. In Galileo’s Middle Finger, Dreger concluded that a small group of activists has endeavoured to bury such theories by attacking Bailey. For her troubles, Dreger endured a series of attacks by trans activists (including personal threats), and the filing of ethics charges with her university.

In the UK, there have been similar attempts to shoot the messenger. James Caspian, a psychotherapist specialising in the field of transgender mental health, proposed research on “de-transitioning” as part of his Master’s degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University last year. Initially, Bath Spa had approved Caspian’s proposed course of study, but later rejected it, citing fears of a “backlash” by transgender activists. (Caspian was told that he was “engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research, [which] carries a risk to the university.”)

Another British researcher, cited by The Telegraph, abandoned a Russell Group university for Italy because, as he sees it, British schools are “covering their own arses” by allowing ethics committees to exert control over politically charged research. Last Fall Heather Brunskell-Evans, a Research Fellow at King’s College London, was asked by medical students to give a talk to her school’s Reproductive and Sexual Health Society on the subject of pornography and the sexualisation of young women. Things changed, however, after she appeared on Radio 4’s Moral Maze,where she elaborated on heterodox ideas contained in a book she’d co-edited with Michele Moore, Transgender Children and Young People. Brunskell-Evan’s talk was cancelled. She also sustained a campaign of harassment, and was accused of “promoting prejudice” by members of her own Women’s Equality Party (WEP), for which she served as Spokesperson for the Policy on Violence Against Women and Girls. (After a lengthy investigation, Brunskell-Evans resigned from the party.)

Students are getting the message. Aside from the well-publicised case of Lindsay Shepherd—who was bullied by a supervisor for the crime of suggesting that pronoun usage was a matter of legitimate debate—there is the more recent case of Angelos Sofocleous, a philosophy MA student at the University of Durham who was fired as Assistant Editor from a journal for re-tweeting: “RT if women don’t have penises.” Sofocleous also faced a social media backlash, and eventually resigned as President-elect of the Humanist Students club. Indeed, trans extremists aren’t even trying to hide their witch-hunt tactics anymore. Goldsmiths researcher Natacha Kennedy, working under the name of Mark Hellen, was discovered to have orchestrated a smear campaign targeting female academics in the UK who refuse to conform to transgender ideology. (Kennedy encouraged members on a private Facebook group to draw up a list where “members plotted to accuse non-compliant professors of hate crime to try to have them ousted from their jobs.”)

Lisa Littman knew what to expect, in other words. But she also knew that her critics wouldn’t have a scientific leg to stand on. Her research passed peer and editorial reviews, and was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. And while critics focused on Littman’s methodology, which focused on testimonials from parents instead of children, such methods are quite commonplace in studies dealing with minors. (It also has been pointed out that nobody in the trans community spoke out in protest when a study using these exact same methods concluded that children thrived after transitioning.)

Another criticism directed at Littman’s study by pro-trans groups is that her findings are skewed by the recruitment of parents through websites such as 4thWaveNowTransgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, which have raised the alarm about ROGD. Yet the evidence clearly shows that pro-transgender groups—including a huge Facebook community called Parents of Transgender Children, founded by the family of trans celebrity Jazz Jenning—sought to introduce the views of trans-affirming parents into Littman’s study. In fact, Jenn Burleton, director of the TransActive Gender Center in Portland, Ore., is on record explicitly exhorting the group’s members to actively skew Littman’s results in a pro-trans direction.

While the culture-war skirmish over transgenderism typically is treated as a debate about culture or sociology, it is also a debate about the primacy of science—since many of the shibboleths we are asked to embrace are either scientifically dubious or obviously inaccurate. And while the debate over whether sex is a mere social construct (it’s not) or whether biologically male brains can exist with female bodies (they can’t) may seem abstract, there are concrete, real-world effects when girls as young as 13 are being told by US physician Johanna Olson-Kennedy that they “have the capacity to make…reasoned, logical decision[s]” about whether they want their breasts removed—because if they “want breasts later on in [their] life, [they] can go and get them.” This sort of casual attitude to body mutilation—and re-mutilation—helps explain why many enterprising doctors have become de facto transgender activists, since they get paid on both ends of the transformation.

There was a time when self-organized groups within the medical profession could be counted on to debunk outliers within their field. But the nature of transgender activism is that small groups of committed extremists can ram through their agenda by threatening to denounce their critics as transphobic. The major transgender medical lobby group, WPATH (World Professional Organisation for Transgender Health), has issued a statement declaring ROGD to be “nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation.” Gender-assignment surgery is a huge growth area for enterprising doctors, and WPATH has every incentive to bury concerns over ROGD, even while claiming that it “encourages continued scientific exploration within a culture of academic freedom.”

The extraordinarily aggressive nature of today’s trans activism means that women’s spaces are now being invaded by male-bodied individuals across the board—from rape-crisis centres, to gym locker rooms, to prisons. It also is turning many female athletics competitions into a joke, because male-bodied athletes who identify as transgender often can best female competitors. Rachel McKinnon, the aforementioned anti-“TERF” activist, also presents as a world-class female cyclist. This month, McKinnon gleefully ascended the podium at the UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championship, alongside the women who won “runner-up” status. As third-place (some would say second-place) finisher Jen Wagner-Assali tweeted, “It’s definitely NOT fair.” But like other activists in this field, McKinnon seems to inhabit a fantasy world in which the difference between male and female athletic performance dissolves amidst the great “complex and messy and beautiful” diversity of human body types more generally. Everyone involved in the sport knows this to be nonsense, but are fearful to say so, lest they be called—in McKinnon’s own words—“transphobic bigots.”

Even in disciplines far removed from athletics or the white-gowned world of hospitals and clinics, pressure to toe an extremist line on transgender issues is undermining academic and intellectual freedom. The journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (PPR) recently published two articles—one by trans academic Rachel McKinnon (College of Charleston) called The Epistemology of Propaganda, and another by Jason Stanley (Yale), “Replies”—wherein the epithet “TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is casually flung about to attack women who oppose a trans-maximalist agenda. The attack on women contained in these articles was so scathing that a group of philosophers were moved to publish a guest post in the philosophy blog Daily Nous entitled “Derogatory Language in Philosophy Journal Risks Increased Hostility and Diminished Discussion,” pointing out that TERF is “at worst a slur and at best derogatory.” (It has also been pointed out that McKinnon’s paper contained at least one flat-out falsehood—the claim that there is no case on record of a transgender woman sexually assaulting a woman in a female-only space.)

One of the dark ironies informing the trans extremists’ case against their opponents is the insistence that people like me—women—must call themselves cis women. For all their fixation on self-identification and self-selected pronouns, these same activists demand the right to apply made-up terms to others. And if you reject those terms? Well, that’s just taken as more proof that you’re a “TERF.”

The Daily Nous authors note that “under the present conditions, holding any of the following beliefs is more than enough to attract the label ‘TERF’: believing that humans are sexually dimorphic; that it is not evident that ‘self-identification’ is a sufficient basis for determining that someone is a woman; and that we should be able to discuss changes to law and social practice which impact women’s sex-based protections.” They also call out the rather extraordinary fact that ostensible academic journals are now being used by authors to attack their opponents with what are in effect playground insults: “Whether or not it’s a slur, it is undeniable that ‘TERF’ is a term used to harass, shame, dismiss, and denigrate women’s ideas and opinions. The fact that PPR has printed two papers that both deploy, rather than merely discuss, this term is unacceptable. It sets a bad precedent for other journals, and it signals disrespect to members of a group that is already underrepresented in academic philosophy, namely women. The conventions of academic discourse demand that radical and gender critical feminists, like anyone else in our profession, be free to state their professional disagreements and be engaged with in a way that is courteous and respectful. Ad hominem attacks are neither, and there are legitimate concerns about normalizing a term which many women feel is instrumental in creating a hostile and intimidating climate in this debate, and is stifling academic discussion of this issue.”

As for McKinnon’s flat out lie that “there’s never been a verified reported instance of a trans women [sic] sexually assaulting a cis woman in such spaces,” the authors provide numerous examples. The existence of such examples shouldn’t surprise anyone since, as the authors themselves note, the crime pattern of males who go on to declare themselves to be transgender females does not change post transition. Indeed, there have been recent analyses of the British prison system showing that approximately two-fifths of transsexual male prisoners are sex offenders. And while the BBC attempted to whitewash this analysis (a scandal unto itself), The Spectator’s James Kirkup took it upon himself to set out the grim facts that the BBC has sought to bury.

In regard to the case of Lisa Littman, there is currently a petition in defence of academic freedom and scientific inquiry at Brown, now with more than 4,000 signatures. Yet the comment section under the Daily Nous helps demonstrate why the extremists think they may be able to snuff out debate in the long run. Out of approximately 300 comments, a huge chunk copy McKinnon’s tactic of simply declaring “TERFs” to be inherently hateful and villainous. A surprising number of self-described philosophers—these are people who purport to have dedicated their lives to truth-seeking—ask why a riposte to the original PPR article was even allowed, with McKinnon being cast as the true victim. One philosopher asked “why [would] Daily Nous…give its large platform to a vividly transphobic article that trades in moral panic and distortions based on hostility, and that includes specific attacks on the scholarship of an untenured person.”

All of this might have been anticipated by Jean-François Lyotard, a French postmodern philosopher who, in his Postmodern Condition (1979), analysed situations of justice in terms of what he called “language games”—which served to reject the claim of any discourse to be grounded in truth. The result of such an outlook is that superstition and blind dogma are elevated to the status of knowledge obtained through science and rationality. Transgender ideologues have adapted their approach to this postmodern age perfectly, since their narrative focuses mostly on “pain,” “hurt feelings” and (as Brown’s public health dean put it) “perspectives.” Even in the UK earlier this week, there was an open letter published in The Guardian which cited the concern of 54 academics who note the harassment, no-platforming, and attempts to invoke the dismissal of scholars who engage in academic research into the transgender phenomenon and ideologies.  Where vaccination policy is concerned, science still has the edge on superstition and propaganda. But in the field of gender studies—and every field that gender studies touches, from philosophy to reproductive health—superstition is now firmly in the lead.


Julian Vigo is a contributor to Forbes, HuffPost UK, and The Ecologist. Her latest book is Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography of Poverty and the Politics of Development (2015). She can be reached at Follow her on Twitter 


  1. Peter from Oz says

    I say we have a policy of ignoring all trans activists. In fact maybe we should start a few campaigns against them and have them sacked from their jobs, if they have them. If the blow torch was applied to their bellies, they might learn what absolute arseholes they are.
    Sinistra delenda est.

    • George G says

      Interesting point, how is this best dealt with?

      Ignoring it seems like would just let it fester in dark corners as a lot of this PoMo stuff has for the past few decades.

      Do we encourage it and get it tried and tested in the real world (as opposed to twitter and tumbler where these trans activists live) ? As a lot of this stuff just dissolves when the rubber meets the road but then how many more well meaning but deluded people and children will have rendered themselves infertile if this persists?

      For my part I just disagree with it any time its raised, which is technically a hate crime on my part. Who would have thought that saying “woman don’t have penis’s” would be a criminal act in 2018, what a strange world we live in.

      • Ray Andrews says

        Fester in dark corners you say? I understand your concern, but what I’d suggest is just defunding it. Active suppression might indeed backfire, but I’d expect that without taxpayer dollars most of these people would just go away.

        • George G says

          @ Ray

          i think your right about de-funding, that alone would probably kill it off. The fact is it’s not brick layers and bus drivers who care about this, this is a non issue for anyone who actually works for a living. Its affluent college / uni students who want their historic ” suffragette” moment, they need an enemy to fight and a princess to rescue. The white savior mentality dripping off them is hilarious given their espoused politics.

          The problem for me with defunding, i live in Scotland where tuition is paid for by the state, is there is no party i can vote for that has that stance. if you live in the states, i saw Jonathan David Haidt was advocating for more parental info on Uni’s political stance and then they could decide if they want to spend there life savings to have their child indoctrinated or educated. let people vote with their wallets in a free market and see what left at the end of the day

          • Ray Andrews says

            We can congratulate Hungary tho, they’ve defunded.

    • That’s odd, because it looks very much like a threat. We have become used to threats from the trans cult. They can only deal in threats, because their arguments are nonsense that is at odds with reality.

      • Ray Andrews says

        I hate to suggest that some moderation would be a good thing on this page … but I suggest it. There are morons here as we see in response to you.

      • @John: trans woman here, but not part of “the trans cult” in that I think of myself as human before any other identity and respect science. no current theory of transsexuality can explain it, in part because people have different motives for transitioning. please don’t generalize about trans people. we do not all think the same way.

    • George G says

      Thanks Honey, this whole trans debate can get so Orwellian and grim, what help bring it back down to earth is remembering its endorsed by clowns. As threats go : my mates trans missus will do you in is the most hilarious thing I’ve heard all day. Thank you.

      • Magdalena Zawojska says

        And these are the people chomping at the bit to be in spaces with women and girls. Terrifying.

        • Right. Aimee Challenor in UK promoted his father onto political committee after his father had ten charges of rape and sex abuse and torture of a ten year old in attic torture chamber, where Aimee lived, and that committee was responsible for advising GirlGuidong to open theories’only membership to boys and it’s leadership open to “men who identify as women”. I

          Pedo who wore dispersed betrothed a little girl, now convicted on tencounts. That’s who is hiding behind gender or knickers.

        • Yes, Magdalena. There is zero material or scientific basis for internal gender. It’s all based on sexist stereotypes.

          Male paraphilia listed in DSM5, cross-dressing and transvestites.

          Penis is male. Some trans are dangerous and do harm women.

          Folks, read TerfIsaSlur dot com, see their threats because women know biology and are standing up for sex-based protections we fought for and earned.

        • The Honey Badger says

          Adult human female? That’s debatable. TERFs are neither adult and definitely not human. Sub-human, definitely…

      • Male violence. When you got no science no cred, what do trans do? Threaten violence. Every. Single. Time.

        Waste of vaginal birth.

      • Graham Verdon says

        Hey Honey Badger, on behalf of Quillette, this isn’t how we do business. Want to make an argument, go ahead, But this won’t fly. Everyone else ignore, please.

      • Frances says

        Night club bouncer AND a martial arts expert. Goodness. That is one tough man. Stereotypical masculine men like than marry men with implants and have friends who read Quillette pieces and threaten strangers on their behalf. Yes, that happens every day, you poor deluded thing.

      • @George G: don’t judge all trans people by the trans activists who read about and see on t.v. we (trans people) have dumb, loud people and smart, quieter people and we do not all subscribe to the same ideology.

      • ” Her husband, who is a nightclub bouncer and martial arts expert, will do him in.”

        If you want your threat to sound believable dont say “martial arts expert.” Say something like “her husband, who has a 16-3 pro MMA record…” When you say “martial arts expert” we know your knowledge of martial arts is nonexistent and is derived from Hollywood. Also, most people who have been around nightclubs know bouncers often get the shit beat out of them.

        Another point, while I am being nice: threats about “martial arts experts” wont work on people from the US. We have guns.

    • Helen says

      Clearly it is a threat. Typical trans advocate, unable to parse a real argument and relying on mamnish threats of violence. Thugs and mentally ill men all. Lovely. And highly unimpressive. Nobody cares about your sad mate’s alleged missus for the record. But hopefully you’ll soon be in a jail for a few years, where stupid thugs belong.

    • Frances says

      Men who talk this way, threaten this way, don’t read Quilette & respond like a drunk sailor in defense of a “mate’s missus”. You’re not fooling anyone.

      • George G says

        Honey are you taking this show on tour anywhere? As a parody of a ignorant Trans activist its hilarious. Quick question about your ” mates trans martial artist, bouncer misses”,How is it possible to be trans-phobic against an imaginary person?

    • Robert Dupuy says

      Wow, What can I add to today’s discussion. Well practically nothing.

      I am just left in awe by this article. As a cyclist I am attest that my record against men, is really nothing to brag about. As a woman though, I wouldn’t be so bad, my strava segments are usually a step ahead of the QOM record anyway. Women in cycling today can participate in the male races, and often do. All USA cycling cat 5 and above, and even age restricted male races are open to women to ride, in my area. The reverse isn’t true.

      The problem with male bodied women, it always seemed to me, is that female bodied women are free to do whatever they want – even dress in male clothing, have a traditionally male name, shave their head bald, do any job they want, speak as they wish, free of any gender stereotypes…even ride in male races. But a male bodied female doing the same is kind of just male all over again.

      This is one movement that I have always never quite understood why feminists didn’t push back, as it defines what being a women is in terms of cliche, it isn’t about anything else….

      And now it all becomes clear…it’s because “fear”? Speechless

    • Bruce heilbrunn says

      The hatred the author and of the commentators below have for trans people is amazing. In the 1840s they had similar diatribes against black people. Why not just throw them in jail or kill them?
      None of your scientific research touted here is valid because the researchers hate gays and trans people.

      • Black people never asked to be–and insist on being–called white. Your comment is silly, Bruce, as your comparison doesn’t work.

    • Ethan Smith says

      Gee, if I had any doubts about the validity of the author’s claims I don’t anymore. Thanks HB for giving me an insight into your world.

  2. As for the picture posted with this article. A recent Canadian study found people are overwhelmingly attracted based on biological sex and not gender identity. So more facts, and what we already knew, that found lesbians would mostly only date transmen, not transwomen.
    Here is a video about the study:

    • I want to add that when I discussed this study, done by a woman and a transwoman at a Canadian university, who focused in their conclusions on lesbians being ‘exclusive’ of transwomen, they blocked me on twitter. If you have watched the video, it is quite clear they see people not being attracted to trans people as discrimination. It has become a sin as a lesbian to not have any interest in transwomen and gets us called TERF. The delusion is great and dangerous.

      • It’s naked homophobia and misogyny, and it’s telling that it’s the male transsexuals intimidating/harassing the female homosexuals and not the other way ’round. That’s not a coincidence.

        • R, it is not a misogynistic and homophobic coincidence indeed, well said. I would say though it are not male transsexuals doing this generally, but male transgenders and the entire gender extremist movement/ideologues (though I feel ideologues is a bit too much credit for the lack of intellect I see). Many transsexuals reject the gender identity movement and support lesbians. Its all a bit complicated, I know. Transsexuals are those with gender dysphoria and search for medical treatment. Transgender is more like: I fel like a woman (based on gender stereotypes) so I am a woman!. The latter cause all this mess for women and lesbians (and gay men).

    • Sky Lone says

      It’s TERF video! Remember we were talking in YouTube commenters, it is?

      • Sky, have you read the study? I suggest you do. It was done by a woman and a transwoman of a Canadian university. Left wing.

      • Sky, youre not homosexual. Youre homogenderal. Or masculine attracted or mascsexual etc. Be creative and create a new same gender identity based sexual orientation. Homosexuality is same sex only.

    • @Slade L: when I first transitioned in the late ’90’s that held true and it does not surprise me that has not changed. based on my late ’90’s experience, trans people often date each other. or, in the case of AGP (autogynephiliac meaning MTF transitioners attracted to women) that they date bi cisgendered women.

  3. fewfae says

    “whether biologically male brains can exist with female bodies(they can’t)”

    there is some research that shows that MTF brains structure is somewhere between that of normal males and females.
    probably something with disruptions in the defeminization and masculinization process during fetal development.
    though to me that is not realy a justification for transitioning since male homosexuals also have more feminine brain structures.
    also I wonder if they are similair or if there is a difference in which part is affected.
    and being a effeminate gay man seems less invasive and has less complications than hormones and surgery.

    • sciencegirl says

      There are also studies suggesting MTF brains are more like gay men. And there is one that purports to show that teenager transgender brains are more like those of their choice at the moment. All of the studies I have read have flaws. The best one shows that one specific area of the brain is most similar between gay and MTF brains, but the authors clearly state the shortcomings of the study. I have never seem the pro-trans group quote this paper. The authors of all of these studies do mention the caveats, low sample size, little or no control groups etc. Some of these studies are in conflict with each other. When results and conclusions contradict one another it means that much data is needed to figure out what is real and what is artifact. The pro-trans agenda cherry picks the use of these data and never report the caveats and actual conclusions of the authors.

      • @sciencegirl: I personally think:

        1) people transition for different reasons (sometimes more because they really do have brains closer to the other sex, other times less so)
        2) no one unified scientific theory of transsexuality can or ever will exist
        3) that does not matter because you do not have to “justify” transition in any way. (I myself transitioned and it improved my life, mostly. I can’t take a magic pill to run me passable 100% of the time, sadly.)

        but with that said…

        4) I stand with the scientists who publish data and come up with theories regardless of the identity-focussed activists they piss off.

    • Studies on that topic are complicated. They’re rarely representative, because the amount of people you can give MRIs to is necessarily limited.
      I’d be surprised if dysphoria didn’t have some form of physical reality in the brain, given the plasticity of the organ; but the studies I’ve read that tried to prove MtF brains reacted like women’s brains were severely flawed. Most importantly because the original studies supposed to show a difference in men’s and women’s brains were completely unacceptable, thus making useless the very tool they used to observe signs of femininity or masculinity in their patients’ brains.

  4. George Glashan says

    Excellent Article.

    There is actually a UK government review which ends today 19th October 2018 midnight, for those who want to have there say. Unfortunately the whole format of the review is regarding self determination of gender and has no scope for questioning on what basis this stuff is founded. But it is still open now for anyone who want to pee into the wind.

    Due credit to these trans activists, so far as I can see the surgically transitioned population of the UK is below 5000 people, so something like 0.0007 % of the UK population has managed a huge policy shift with no shots fired, or marches in the streets, merely the intimidation of calling people bigots has achieved this? incredible.

  5. Interested Party says

    Social contagion (all forms of media) and trans activism in schools has led to an over 4000% increase in girls presenting to the tavistock clinic in London wanting to “transition” over the last decade. Transgenderism has been called the new anorexia. It’s been called the new emo. It’s been related to anxiety, depression, non-heterosexuality. It’s often indicative of giftedness or, neurodiversity. It’s sometimes a manifestation of difficulty with/exclusion from same sex peers and / or rejection of femininity (appearance bevahiors interests etc – gender roles & stereotypes, social norms which aren’t “innate” but “learned”. ) All of these issues can be addressed separately with psychotherapy, maturity and feminism!

    In a broader scope , are we really to belive that some women have penises and some men have vaginas ? Are we as a society going to literally redefine what it means to be gay / lesbian , man / woman , boy / girl in order to accommodate some idealogues whose views are nothing less than extreme ? Will we let males dominate female sports ? Be placed in female psych wards, rape clinics , domestic violence shelters , prisons ? Take scholarships and positions slated for females ? It’s already happening. Women’s sex based rights and protections are being stripped. The very definition of woman, “adult human female” was recently displayed on a billboard in England by a feminist to raise awareness of this issue and was (predictably) taken down immediately due to complaints by males that it was “offensive to trans women” and made made them feel “unsafe”.

    Who befefits from all of this ? What is their motivation ? Males driven by sexual obsessions of being women seek legitimacy (I’m trapped in the wrong body ! It’s not a sexual thing , it’s a brain thing !) LBGT charities draw in huge money for transactivism. Particularly HRC, Stonewall & Mermaids. The more they talk about suicide, the more money they get. This is unethical exploitation of those who suffer from suicidal idealation and is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Corporations and politicians virtue signal their “inclusivity”/ “wokeness by throwing in some trans talking points. In the meantime, pharmaceutical companies, Gender clinics/clinicians, Surgeons & endocrinologists are on track to build a $1B industry by 2030.

    Who looses ? Children and parents. These kids are being put on a medical path that will compromise their health, fertility, and sexual function. They are being ushered into a world in which they will be legally entitled to “special accommodations” granted by politicians that much of society doesn’t agree with or wish to provide. They are being made into lifelong medical patients. The long term psycho-social -sexual-medical side effects of these medical interventions are literally UNKNOWN, and will not be known for decades. Testocerone for females is being prescribed OFF LABEL. These issues need far more unbiased academic / scientific / philosophical study and rigorous societal debate. They can not be determined by executive order and/or lobby groups.

    Anyone who challenges transorthodoxy is called a terf and a transphobe, Often threatened, reported to their employer , etc. Anyone who questions the motives and practices is silenced with suicide statistics that have already been debunked by numerous academics.

    This all started in the US with the richest transgender women in the world , Jennifer Pritzker, whose family funded Obama and whose Tawani foundation gives millions of dollars to universities charities hospitals research etc specifically to promote “her” transgender agenda in a number of insidious ways, shapes and forms.

    • Yes, Pritzker funded a chair in gender studies at Univ of Victoria, BC. Within the year, the Women’s Health Center funded by student fees was taken over by a male with silicone chest bumps who displayed homemaker on social media with his tastings grizzled hair makeup and half-last chubby naked display. Since his takeover, the female former women’s datacenter day the new “Equality Center” has served no women, there’s no programs….what a crock.

      Male fetish rights. Thanks, porn culture. Addled the men’s brains. Forgot to keep their personality TMI to their personal lives.

      • I’m throwing away this Amazon device and buying Apple.

        I was saying, “male with silicone chest bumps who displayed himself naked on social media with grizzled long hair the store-mentioned fake bombs and a half-mast chubby” .

        Jess Bradley in UK another flasher who posts himself masturbating in public places and thinks he’s a woman and should advise on anything?

  6. blitz442 says

    “Fed a daily online diet of nonsense and ideologically motivated activism, many people have come to reject mainstream medical science—including the science behind vaccinations. You’d think that “get vaccinated” would be a relatively straightforward message.“

    Maybe most people are stupid. Not just ignorant and uneducated, but stupid. Under this view, the behavior of most people is guided by emotion and reference to group norms. Simply change the norms, and you can change the behavior of vast numbers of people. Reasoning from first principles, gathering evidence to support one’s opinion, critically evaluating multiple view points….what is it?

    There is also a whole suite of mental bugs and logical fallacies (such as confirmation bias) that can potentially affect all members of our species, but are particularly common in the stupid, who have no means to recognize or combat them.

    In this view, human progress has been driven mainly by a few talented individuals who have risen above the bovine crowd and dragged us along, often despite our obtuse resistance.
    Another view is that people are not that stupid, but can be lazy and/or too easily guided by the strong desire to conform. In this view, dumb behavior is very much a function of one’s social environment and motivations, and not raw brain power.

    I used to hold the latter view, but now I am tending toward the former. I would not say that people are “stupid”, but I do think that the average person is woefully deficient in analytical thinking in way that is not totally explained by social factors. I say that now after almost two decades of working in business, and coming across example after example of (often highly educated) people performing their jobs in very stupid ways (and with zero interest in how their job fits in the larger picture of the organization), and people defending those ways with very stupid reasons, such as blind adherence to instructions or “company policy”. (Just for what it’s worth, I put myself in a sort of mezzanine intellectual category of “valuing the importance analytical thought and possessing some ability, but not talented enough to be a true innovator”. But at least I can be a facilitator of the fruits of the truly gifted, and not a barrier.)

    Perhaps human intelligence really is a lot like height; heavily influenced by genes, not easily modified, and highly variable, with the real thinkers as a small minority on the far right end of the bell curve. Most of us sort of huddle in the middle, capable of being trained in some narrow technical fields and filled with some facts memorized by rote, but lacking in ability to arrive at true knowledge on our own. We don’t analyze and cogitate poorly because of laziness or lack of effort. Rather, it’s because for most of us, our brains are generally not built for the higher level thinking that is necessary for deep analysis and innovation. It’s a bit like asking the average person to dunk a basketball.

    We may only progress as a species when our societies allow the intellectually talented to spread their wings, and their discoveries, insights and innovations become built-in to our daily environment and institutions, such that our blind adherence to group norms more or less maps on to best practices. We are therefore “behaving intelligently” in these instances even if we are just blindly adhering to societal conventions. A person may not have the slightest notion of how vaccination works, and have no interest in finding out, but they have been socialized to get themselves and their kids vaccinated because that’s what everyone else does. But what happens when these norms, based on reason and hard evidence, are undermined?

    Another example of this is the concept of free speech. It is now clear that large numbers of people, even college students, do not grasp this concept at all. Not a major problem when people don’t challenge the heuristic that “free speech is good”, and our institutions vigorously uphold it. But what happens when nefarious individuals start to exploit people’s lack of basic understanding of how this fundamental right is supposed to function? Same could be said for the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

    None of this is fatal as long as our influential institutions (universities, governments, courts, the press…) remain places that the intellectually talented and their facilitators can thrive and continue to make their influence felt in our society. When these institutions start to fail at this, then the norms emanating from them will start to resemble more and more the inconsistent, evidence-free, selfish, herd-like, short-sighted, fundamentally stupid thinking that characterizes most of modern human cognition.

    • frubwag says

      This is the best comment I have ever read anywhere, any topic.

    • Krpow says

      “the average person is woefully deficient in analytical thinking”

      I agree with this statement but it should be pointed out that an overwhelming percentage of the most rabid and vocal progressive activists are not “average” by any means. They are highly educated, wealthy and, in spite of the deafening volume of their righteous screeching, in the minority. It has been found that, critical thinking skills aside, the average person is quitely moderate in their views, not given to espousing extreme ideologies, and has been cowed into terrified silence.

    • Ray Andrews says

      ” When these institutions start to fail at this ”

      And they are now failing in this routinely.

    • Frances says

      I want to cut this out & paste this somewhere. Anywhere really. This trans thing is bizarre. I’ve never seen anything catch fire so quickly. I hope it is an anomaly, but what if, like the romanticizing of highly oppressive misogynistic Islam,it catches hold for some inexplicable reason? What then?

    • Cogent and frightening observations, blitz442. You write beautifully. Some of the greatest triumphs of medical science, psychology, and civil law (vaccination, psychometrics, free speech) are being rolled back by our trusted institutions of academia, government, and religion.

      Genetics is another pillar of human advancement. My vagina is a manifestation of being XX chromosome: a reproductive organ not a cosmetic surgical indulgence. I am scared of post-modernism. It is infecting everything.

  7. The conflict between trans-activists and “TERFS” has become polarised, with both sides slinging insults behind ideological barricades. Both sides have convinced themselves that it is a matter of life or death, or at least an essential aspect of their quality of life. Trans-activists claim that refusal of their demands will lead some of them to suicide, or lead to increased murder rates. Some feminists see a rapist in a skirt in every bathroom, or at least a hairy male in every shelter for abused women.

    Both sides seem to me to have some reasonable points. Trans-critical feminists are reasonable in pointing out the farcical in male-bodied individuals participating in competitive sports as women, and that no-one with a penis belongs in a womens’ prison, or indeed in any situation where women are naked in public. But there is a strong element of irrational hatred of all men running through some elements of radical feminism, and transgendered individuals are particularly vilified as being men who wish to invade the sacred space of womanhood. This is unkind to those transgendered individuals who are well aware of reality, and simply desire to live as if they were women while appreciating that there are some senses in which they are not.

    Vocal trans-advocates damage their credibility by attempting to alter attitudes by policing language. “Assigned male/female at birth” is particularly stupid, as if a coin was tossed when the child is born and they were arbitrarily assigned to the red team or the blue team. They also damage their case by a sometimes violent rejection of the idea that a cause of transgender impulses can be sexuality, either the desire by homosexual men to be a woman in order to be attractive to manly men, or a heterosexual attraction to an image of oneself as female. It should be possible for reasonable people to accept that these can sometimes be causal factors while arguing – hopefully with evidence – that this is not the whole story.

    • Julie says

      That’s not true. Only one side is using violence, shutting down venues, giving rape and murder threats, using bomb threats and setting off smoke bombs in press offices. The other side, women,are simply asking to meet and discuss the issuus which are going to affect them if proposed changes to the gender recognition act go through.

    • Frances says

      They are men. Where are the women who wish to be men kicking up a fuss? Transsexuals were traditionally effeminate gay men. This new cult is malevolent. Our hatred toward them, who taunt us on social media with “suck my ladyd–k” and so on, might seem like hatred toward all men, but I assure you it isn’t.
      I’ve a modest proposal. You keep these hostile, primarily male, entitled deviants in your lockers & toilets & see if you experience warm brotherly love. I think not.

  8. Farris says

    Accepting transgendered male to female as the same as natural born females is harmful to women and women’s issues. It is literally letting the fox in the hen house.
    Women should enjoy the freedom of association, which means they may choose to fraternize or athletically compete with those like themselves and may exclude those who merely claim to be like them.
    Universities try to maintain “safe spaces” where students do not feel uncomfortable or threatened. Odd that “safe spaces” would not include bathrooms, locker rooms or changing areas. To use modern day leftist language transgender is simply gender appropriation.

    • Ghatanathoah says


      The “fox in the henhouse” metaphor shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how human beings think and behave. It is also extraordinarily misandrist.

      Men are not foxes and women are not hens. The vast majority of men (at least in modern, first world countries) in have no desire to harm or dominate women and would behave in a completely friendly and reasonable fashion if they were admitted into “women’s spaces.”

      The henhouse metaphor also has a rather bizarre understanding of the motivations of transpeople. Do you really, honestly think that transpeople are somehow trying to sneak into women’s spaces so that they can hurt or oppress the women in them? That indicates an inhuman level of dedication to a very long con. Transwomen are frequent victims of bullying and violence, do you really think they are putting up with that just for a tiny chance to be alone in a women’s space for a little bit? That they’d undergo surgery to modify their genitals for that chance? That would be a level of dedication to put Sokushinbutsu monks to shame. No one is that dedicated to oppressing women.

      I think the “gender appropriation” metaphor is an apt one because I have exactly as much respect for ciswomen claiming that transwomen are “invading their spaces” as I do for all the snowflakes who think it’s racist for white women to wear Chinese dresses.

      • Farris says

        “Men are not foxes and women are not hens.”

        And a woman does not have a penis nor a man a vagina.

        My point was not to claim that all transgenders are sexual predators but rather that natural born women have a right to privacy and a right to feel secure in private areas.

        • Thanks, Carrie

          Just that.

          Penis is male.

          I’ve been sex assaulted by male, and while#HolOgrAms are sex offenders (although 50% of trans in UK prisons are there for sexoffenses). and I have sex-based protections in law for a reason.

          Women of all backgrounds are going to stop these Male Sex Rights gender radicals saying what men think is more valid than material, biological reality.

          Please, no intersex libel, they are either males or females with Disorders of Sexual Development and Is intersecting e published that interSEX has nothing to do a gender self-identity.

      • Magdalena Zawojska says

        How do we tell the men who “have no desire to harm women” from the ones who do? Any male who is so keen to enter women’s spaces is going to be viewed with suspicion, that may be hurtful to your feelings but your feelings are not more important that our safety.

        Any male who demands to be included in female space is necessarily going to be warily observed, tough cookies. Instead of crying at women for astutely observing the way males do in fact dominate every space they are a part of, you could listen to women when we tell you males in spaces reserved for females only will always be viewed as a threat. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

        Speaking for myself I couldn’t give a flipping fig if you respect me or not.

      • The British prison system locked a rapist up with women prisoners. If that isn’t putting a Fox in the hen house what the fuck is?

        It’s not misandrist to point out that convicted rapists are prone to committing rape. He was allowed to commit FOUR sex offences before they eventual moved him.

        And in this case ‘Karen White’ was also a paedophile and the prison in question had a mother and child unit. How fucked up ate your priorities that you would allow a paedo access to children?

      • You presume to know the motivations of every single male who self-identifies as trans. (Naturally, you believe they’re all pure as the driven snow.) It’s as if you live in a world where proclaiming the word “trans” imbues one with magical qualities.

        The whole point of opposing Self-ID (among other new radical trans activist aims) is that males no longer need to engage in a “long con” because all the safeguards and barriers — the requirements that males demonstrate a genuine commitment to living as women — are being replaced with instant on-demand legal womanhood, as easy as downloading an app on your smartphone. (More-or-less.)

        And besides, even so-called “true” transwomen — males who develop dysphoria for whatever reason (paraphilia, sexuality, etc.) and choose to live full-time as women — STILL show NO CHANGE in male-pattern violence. Of course I sympathize with many transwomen, some of whom face risks of male violence similar to what females do. This would be the more physically petite and effeminate transwomen in particular. But the image of the fragile, “feminine” male who transitioned doesn’t apply to all transwomen. There’s lots of middle-aged 250-pound straight macho athletes who transition too (see autogynephelia). Simply declaring oneself trans does not negate the reality of one’s maleness.

        You display ignorance of the science and reality of sex-based violence, of sexual dimorphism in general, and of what the actual trans population looks and acts like. Magical thinking, through and through.

      • Frances says

        ghatanathoah — it is not that transwomen are more likely to assault women, it is that there will be no stopping any man from entering a women’s shower, toilet, domestic violence shelter etc. and if you believe the minority of men who do prey on women will not take advantage of this ill-considered idea, you are hopelessly naive.

      • Frances says

        And ghata_____ your use of the nonsense word *cis* gives away your motivation.

    • Ray Andrews says

      Freedom of association you say? What an interesting and novel idea! But would it apply to men? whites? heterosexuals?

      • Frances says

        White male heterosexual applies to many men calling themselves “lesbians” & insisting on their right to have sex with lesbians. You know that they’re primarily white & male & heterosexual right? Funny you choose that example.

      • Ray I’ve been thinking the same thing. Women fought hard to get into male only schools and clubs and even locker rooms (sports reporters). Now we’re experiencing the other side. No more sororities ladies, exclusion will not be tolerated. As a long time feminist (a TEF more than a TERF), can I just say I’m sorry — to decent men who just wanted to get together without women to drink beer and blow farts. I think men and women get along better with a little time apart.

        The only good news is that trans rules are going to make it hella hard on islamists who want separate swim times, eating areas, etc.

        • Robert Dupuy says

          I just thank my good luck that us autistic folks are still flying under the radar. I never quite understood the logic of forcing ones way into another’s social club, but nothing could be more exclusionary than being in a room by oneself. I wonder when my solace will no longer be tolerated.

  9. ccscientist says

    There are several weighty issues that the attacks on science prevent us from discussing:
    1) The teens in question in the Littman study are in many cases minors who are insisting on permanent, disfiguring treatment without parental permission.
    2) There is a high suicide rate among the trans and transition does not ameliorate this. If this cannot be discussed, they cannot be helped.
    3) Many who transition later regret it–this also cannot be discussed to the harm of those who might regret it.
    4) In many cases (what % we don’t know for sure, but many) those who feel trans as teens later come to feel comfortable simply as gay. No hormonal or surgical intervention needed. What distinguishes these cases?
    5) If Littman is right and group hysteria/peer-pressure affects some girls particularly, then some of these girls are NOT transgender and will likely suffer more in the future.
    6) Some transgender girls (to male) still become pregnant–what affects do all the hormone treatments have on the baby? This baby is real, not a concept.

    • Hear ? hear!

      Women’s rights to privacy and safeguarding are being attacked by male sex right totalitarians.

      2 + 2 does Not equal 5.

      Penis is male. Full stop.

  10. Ggglen says

    Whatever happened to “Stick and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me???”

    • Whatever happened to “Stick and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me???”

      One side took up sticks and stones, and proudly displayed them at an exhibition in San Francisco.

      • Transwomen appeared with bats at both women’s march Chicago and in Dyke March 2017. Then a group of grandsons mounted that 2018 despicable exhibit at San Fran public library basically promoting violence against women who question their sexfetixh.

        Women dont even nhave Equal Constitutional Rights with men in US and gender radicals want 1% to have exceptional rights over women because they have personify preferences in clothing hair style? Pigs. Male chauvinist pigs in skirt.

    • JohnBrown says

      Dear Honey Badger

      This is a place where grown ups can discuss a contentious area with articulate arguments in an attempt to reach the truth. If you are not able to contribute at this level then you may prefer a run round the park?

    • Graham Verdon says

      I’m writing on behalf of Quillette. You need to stop threatening people. If you’re not here to discuss things rationally and respectfully, we just have to cut the cord. No hard feelings. HB.

  11. Ghatanathoah says

    While it’s pretty common for SJWs to claim anyone who disagrees with them for any reason is a hateful bigot, in the case of TERFs, the shoe seems to fit. To see this you just need to look at the way radical feminists treat men, and the way they treat women who disagree with them. The way they treat transpeople is just a special case of this.

    If you really believe that transpeople are suffering from some sort of delusion then they should be objects of pity rather than fear and hatred. The anger TERFs direct at them is bizarre, the best explanation I can come up with is that they view transpeople’s desires to be included as women as some sort of bizarre form of “male entitlement,” rather than a sincere belief that they belong. This is ridiculous, but unsurprising since radical feminism in general is based on total lack of understanding of how human beings think and behave.

    It’s kind of hypocritical to claim that trans-activists are making absurd claims when radical feminism is part of that wing of Cultural Marxist “intersectional” leftism that makes absurd claims about how all men are entitled misogynists; and then dismisses any man who disagrees as a bigot and any woman who disagrees as a traitor. The same wing of leftism that attacks behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology as tools of the “white supremacist patriarchy”.

    The radical feminist notion of gender identity is far more absurd than the trans-activist notion of it. Radical feminism sees “womanhood” as defined by oppression, as defined by being second-class citizens to men. If you apply their definition of womanhood logically and consistently a female human raised in a matriarchal society isn’t really a woman (although they of course don’t claim this because radical feminists think logic and consistency are more tools of the patriarchy).

    The idea that TERFs are just poor persecuted people advocating for common sense when surrounded by crazies is absurd, they are far crazier and more vitriolic than the most extreme trans-activists. I find it bizarre that right-wing people are willing to ally with them. It would be like if someone who thought Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone joined forces with someone who thinks JFK was assassinated by Satanic lizard-aliens in order to fight someone who thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was working for the CIA.

    • No, radical feminism sees womanhood as being of the female biological sex. It is so simple it breaks your mind, doesnt it?

        • Stonewall is a male-led gender radicals laughing stock k. No Lesbian in lgbt. BwaahHa. Not much G eithet.

          But queer!

          Look. Me is is male. Stay in your own lane.

          White hetero “” transwomen” suffer HALF the murder rate of men of women. The 27 trans deaths listed by their own leg 2014-2016 shower one white granny killedbydomestic partner who wE a male, the other 26 PiC used drugs, got killed by johns, domestic partners – all killed bymen.

          Leave women out of your dysphoric-based public sex co-splay. Male paraphilias, I don’t consent.

    • Sarah says

      Your grasp on radical feminist viewpoints is weak and factually inaccurate. I’m curious how you managed to read this entire article and still write this long error-filled and propaganda-laced response. I suggest sitting down with someone better schooled in “logic” as you keep putting it and helping you run through some of your points to see where you fell off base, particularly leading to how radical feminists apparently define women as simply “oppression”(?) as then obviously any human subjected to oppression would then be women? Please get help.

    • Magdalena Zawojska says

      Terf is a slur so everything you just wrote there containing the slur and then calling women “crazy” and “vitriolic” is really rich, bro. How do these women “treat men” according to you? If we hold men accountable for their actions, is this “misandry” to you? Should men be able to do whatever they please to women? Well, you’re in luck because they already do, congratulations. Women who do not believe men can be women are not crazy, unless you think any woman who doesn’t kowtow to male desires is crazy, which is just downright misogynistic, good job propping up the patriarchy. I’m sure sexist men everywhere thank you.

      Radical feminists don’t believe in “gender identity”, we believe in biological sex, because that is why women are oppressed, not by any identity they may or not feel. Were the female babies killed in India for their identity or their biological sex, bro? Were the girls in Somalia and other countries subjected to FGM based on their biological sex or their identity? We DO NOT see “womanhood” on the basis of male oppression, because we don’t believe oppression is natural as you obviously do when you call us “cis”, we see it as based on life experience as being born and raised female, going through menstruation, childbirth, menopause etc, something not all women will experience but definitely something no male will ever experience regardless of his beliefs about himself.

      Sexist males certainly know who to focus on when they oppress, degrade, and disenfranchise women, as you have also done. If you find a matriarchal society, please let me know I’d like to move there.

      • ga gamba says

        If we hold men accountable for their actions, is this “misandry” to you?

        But it goes beyond that, doesn’t it? You’re not merely holding individuals accountable, you’re holding the group accountable for the actions of individuals. This gets the push back. A well-deserved one.

        Further, when we look at the statistics of domestic partner abuse, the most abusive ones are those of lesbian couples.

        Because women, often lesbian women, dominated the crafting of the domestic abuse terminology, the narratives, and the laws, inconvenient truths such as female-on-female domestic violence were given short shrift. It would really screw up the allegation script and the indoctrination strategy if it was widely known women are abusers too. What’s peculiar is Erin Pizzey, who established the world’s first domestic abuse refuge in 1971, long said domestic abuse was more than male on female. She advocated treating it as family problem, but the feminist ideologues opposed this in favour of the simple-minded dichotomy of male-oppressor female-oppressed narrative. Said Pizzey: “There are as many violent women as men, but there’s a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States — millions of dollars. It isn’t a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women’s refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren’t total victims.” When pressed to recognise female-on-female violence, often the radical feminists blame “the patriarchy”.

        Radical feminists have a lot to answer for. Gaslighting women for the past five decades, for starters. Endeavouring to undermine the family as the foundation of civilisation is another misdeed by radfems, who favour collective rearing.

      • C O'H says

        thanks for that powerful and moving response @ Magdalena Zawojska

    • @Ghatanathoah

      Part of the problem is viewing this issue as Terfs vs. Trans like a Dave Chapelle episode of Shirts vs. Blouses. My wife who is simply a straight up out of the womb lesbian & is in no way a feminist or transphobe. Yet she’s been called “fucking dyke” and TERF for literally no reason, randomly on the street. Somehow her being comfortable being a butch lesbian, not by identity but fact, is some kind existential threat. She literally could care less how someone identifies yet she’s targeted as a “terf” for merely being herself.

      Quite frankly radical feminists & trans activists are cut from the same Marxist utopian cloth. Both groups employ grievances and academic sounding gibberish to gain power. The only difference is that the feminists in the current zeitgeist don’t insist that you have to sleep with them to prove your revolutionary loyalty (however some academic feminists who identified as lesbians but were not, have employed such rhetoric in the past). Your idea though about “right” wingers joining with radfems is a little short sided. Both groups are concerned about women’s safety. “Strange bedfellows” is a saying for a reason.

      While I support a person’s right to decide who they want to be, that shouldn’t mean everyone else has to affirm it. In a few years I suspect Trans will become a catch-all term for those who feel they are all sorts of things: transracial, transethnic, transanimal, and transhuman. Go ahead & scoff…then read Martine Rothblatts book on transgenderism being a gateway to transhumanism.

      As far as trans folks wanting to belong, certainly that is true of some. However when my wife see’s the toilet seat up now in the womens bathroom, or on the chalkboard discussion there’s continual questions by the transwoman about whether women wear panties (yes panties) under their skirts at work, it becomes clear not all folks are interested in merely belonging. Now some of the very progressive females working there are uncomfortable going to the women’s room. That’s not belonging, that’s a takeover.

      • @Mrs Q: I can relate to what you said. sort of a long story that I won’t go into but I once got called a “feminazi” once based mainly on my appearance. ironic label given how I actually think.

        about transgenderism as “gateway drug”, I don’t agree. autogynephiliac (AGP) trans women (such as myself) commonly (usually?) have, to put it crudely, nerdy interests. (they/we commonly fall into the autistic spectrum.)

        transhumanists, a group I also identify with, by definition, also have nerdy interests. using myself as the model, though, I gravitated towards transhumanism in part because of my transhumanism but only because I already that kind of thing.

        although I haven’t read Rothblatt’s book but I suspect she has generalized based on herself. (100% certain, by the way, that Rothblatt has some degree of autism and falls into the AGP group.)

    • The idea that TERFs are just poor persecuted people advocating for common sense when surrounded by crazies is absurd, they are far crazier and more vitriolic than the most extreme trans-activists.

      The number of ‘TERFs’ who have assaulted transwomen is zero.

      The number of ‘TERFs’ who have disrupted meetings of TRAs with bomb threats is zero.

      The number of smokebomb attacks on media outlets which have allowed any criticism of ‘TERFs’ whatsoever is zero.

      • No female has ever killed a transwoman. Number of females who have killed transwomen = 0.

        Transwomen (biological males) have been convicted of killing a lot of women. In June 2017 in Washington State, transwoman serial killer Douglas, “Donna”, Perry was convicted of killing three women. Transwoman Robert, “Michelle”, Kosilek was convicted of killing his wife. Transwoman Synthia, “China”, Blast was convicted of helping to kill a 14 year old black girl, stuff her body into a box, and set the box on fire.

        As I type this, there is a transwoman on trial in Oakland, CA for killing a lesbian couple and their son. Dana Rivers was part of Camp Trans that protested outside of Michigan Women’s Music Festival, a lesbian run event. Queer activist Pablo Gomez Jr. is also on trial in the bay area for murder of one woman and attempted murder of another woman. That is one transwoman and a queer activist on trial for murdering women, both in the bay area.

        So, based on actual crimes such as murder and rape, we know which side the violence is coming from.

        • Skylark, right on. Douglas “Donna” Perry his in women’s prison until a cellmate reported he had sex with her and admitted to killing dozens of prostitutes. He was convicted by DNA evidence and is serving his life sentence in Purdy, Women’s Treatment Center in Gig Harbor, Wa. His crimes are recorded as committed by a female.

    • Andrew Mcguiness says

      Thankyou for a sane comment!

      Also: “Radical feminism sees “womanhood” as defined by oppression, as defined by being second-class citizens to men” – I suspect that *some* of what’s going on is an attempt to get around that attitude, and vehement opposition on those grounds. Radical feminism has had a strain of de facto essentialism for some decades and it came strongly to the fore when the trans issue came up. The really emotional opposition seems to be towards MTF trans people, not FTM. But you never see that aspect (that males might be subconsciously trying to escape the category of ‘male’ as increasingly defined by feminism) discussed, even though feinists such as Germaine Greer explicitly argue that men can’t change to be women because they haven’t had the experience of opression as a women since birth.

    • Ray Andrews says

      What we have here is a fight between two Victim Identities for the higher status. Women have traditionally been first among equals when it comes to Status, but they have been scalped by the trans who now wear the crown of Most Oppressed. As you say, the radfems will not sheath their claws even tho the trans are not the traditional enemy (The Patriarchy).

    • Nigel says

      Well put Ghatanathoah. Trans-activism is merely the consequence of viewing everything through a cultural marxist critical theory lens: two-sided conflicts between the oppressor and oppressed abound. Men vs. women, white vs. black, gay vs. straight, and now, “cis” vs. trans. I have no sympathy for the brainless radfems who have, for decades, pushed this poisonous ideology only to find themselves on the wrong end of it. Well, they’ve made their bed and now they can lie in it – with a randy trans-“woman”.

      If women, as a group, can’t rise above their own socially conforming virtue-signalling then they shouldn’t expect any help from real men.

  12. Farris says

    In the earlier days when issues involving homosexuals arose the refrain was typically, “why should society be concerned with what consenting adults do in the bedroom” or in the case of lifting the ban on gay marriage, “heterosexual are not being forced to solemnize the marriage”. And whether one agrees or not these are valid points. The point being made in these statements is basically the actions of being gay does not much affect the lives of straight persons.
    The same cannot be said with transgender issues. In the case of transgenders the public is required to believe something it knows to be untrue, like a woman with penis. It is akin to the Inquisition where one either converts to the belief that a woman can have a penis and a man a vagina, or face dire consequences. If adults wish to spend their money, mutilating their body, I have no argument. But when those same people wish to use mob oppression to suppress the free flow of ideas or desire to force others to participate in their delusion, then I am required to object.

  13. Shatterface says

    TRAs have just smoke bombed the office of two major newspapers (the Metro and The Daily Mail) in the heart of London.

    This follows a recent bomb threat against a feminist to discuss changes to the Gender Recognition Act and a number of acts of violence against gender critical women. It’s about time these thugs were treated like the terrorists they are.

    • Transgender smoke bombing media headquarters is gender terrorism. How bad does it have to get before people realize mental instability.

      Dangerous blokes when women say – enough.

      • @radfemisphere: not “transgender smoke bombing” but “trans activist smoke bombing”. not the same thing!

  14. scribblerg says

    The Man Who Would Be Queen is an amazing book. I wonder how many of the maniacs who got so angry at Bailey ever read it? The tone is so empathetic and it’s very clear that Bailey has spent a lifetime studying homosexuals and trans people, and also has real connections with such people. He doesn’t approach the topic from a distance. It’s also a very accessible work for a nonscientist, which I appreciated.

    The story he tells of various trans people and the data and analysis all weave together beautifully. I felt that “click” in my head that one gets when an idea explains everything – cuz it’s correct, ya know? One little example. He spends some time on the well established connection between invitro hormonal exposure and homosexuality, and deepens the explanation of it. I was embarrassed to not have realized why gay men act more effeminately. But of course it’ a mating strategy. They want to attract men of course – and by no means just other gay men. The dressing up like a girl is a very common phase for homosexual boys. It seems a large number of trans people are in a way just very homosexual if you will, having had higher levels of hormonal exposure perhaps (findings were less deep on that topic I believe). I’ve noticed gay men turning flaming on and off – and now I got it. It’s an adaptive strategy t of course. No doubt the homosexual man has the back of his brain activated by men as mine is by women. I got it – and why not become more attractive to more men? Remember, most men aren’t gay. By being effeminate, the point is to attract more males, who are mostly straight.

    I won’t go further, as I was trying to give one insight that I found incredibly helpful as an example. There are many more in the book, and the overarching analysis and hypothesis is so genius and deep.

    When the left came out against him and Blanchard, I was on the one hand stunned, but also saw it coming, it had already started by the time I got him. Today? If you refer to any of Bailey’s or Blanchard’s ideas or work in any public space on the internet, activists will descend up on you like carrion feeding predators. The opening is dismissive, treating the work as outdated and debunked, and Bailey and Blanchard as transphobic or whatever, or “deniers” and much other crazy nasty stuff. Bailey barely survived at Northwestern – while holding tenure and being highly published and esteemed in his field. It’s not too much say Bailey could have written his own ticket in the field up until then – now? Persona non gratis. The Left is so sick. There isn’t a hateful bone in Bailey’s whole body.

  15. Caligula says

    There seems to be a dearth of literature comparing outcomes of those who have had transition surgery as compared with those who wished to do so but who (for a variety of reasons) were unable to do so.

    Since these procedures carry obvious risks (surgery always carries some risks, as does hormone therapy, as does the possibility of post-surgery regret) and involves the removal of apparently health body parts, and since medical practice commonly involves a balancing of risks vs benefits, the apparent rush to perform non-reversible surgery on teens seems spectacularly inadvised.

    Characterizing these treatments as not only medical necessity but as de-facto medical emergencies (for if they were not then everyone could wait a few years for less radical remedies to be explored) seems spectacularly inadvisable in the face of considerable scientific uncertainty as to the benefits and risks of such radical interventions.

    Perhaps the shrillness of demands for those not fully on-board the transwagon to just shut up already might be due fears that the trans activists agenda just might not withstand rigorous scientific examination?

  16. “There is perhaps no other area of human behaviour where ideologically motivated actors have been so successful in creating what are in effect no-go zones for academics, and even for facts themselves.”

    Sounds a lot like Climate science to me.

  17. restless94110 says

    What a shame the author of this piece led with the misrepresentation of the vaccine issue. He characterizes it as a foolish conspiracy theory, when there are strong questions being asked by intelligent people all over the world 60 vaccinations before age 3 is obviously more than some humans can deal with, an increase that has happened in the past 40 years (and therefore is sudden). It’s a valid point and should never be misrepresented as this author has done.

    But then the author goes on to complain that other issues in sciece research around transgender are being misrepresented! Hypocrisy much?

    The probem is not just the SJW attempts to stifle impartial science around Trans issues and gender in general, it is also this blind nonsense about vaccine “conspiracies” that this author must denigrate. If you’re not open to vaccination issues, then it’s hard for you to validly complain about another group stifling legitimate counter hypotheses and open inquiry. This weakens faith in science just as much as your particular narrow concern does.

    Make up your mind. Either everything is open to question or we aren’t scientific any longer. There is never such a thing as settled science.

    • Paul Ellis says

      You might want to write more slowly, because I’m afraid I find your remarks to be almost unintelligible.

      • NeonCrusader says

        Unintelligible? Possibly. Comical? Certainly. I got a good chuckle out of reading the declarative opening of her comment: “That’s fucking!”
        Huh, I don’t know, is it? I thought we were just commenting, but maybe the audience has now moved on to other, fleshier concerns?

  18. Patricia Tennant says

    This is an excellent article but I don’t think the inclusion of Lindsay Shepherd is a good idea. There is evidence that Lindsay secretly recorded the meeting you referred to and in that context, her own behaviours and comments must be considered suspect as she was essentially orchestrating her actions and comments in the meeting for a pre-determined outcome. There’s a reason it’s mired in legal problems.

    • ga gamba says

      Shepard certainly recorded the interrogation. She did so on a notebook computer placed on a table right in front of the others. What you fail to mention, deliberately I presume as a way to fabricate this fallacious story, is in Canada it is legal to record your own conversations, whether they are had on the telephone or in person. This is the one-party consent rule, and because Shepard was a party in the event the recording was lawful. If it wasn’t legal certainly those recorded and the university admin would have have a legal basis to suppress the recording as well as file legal claims against her. This didn’t happen. Rather, the university president and one of the professors both publicly apologised to Shepherd.

      The fabrication that did occur was the claim by the interrogators someone had filed a complaint with the university. This never happened, which the university admitted.

      You’re really off in the world of make believe trying concoct this narrative. Any person having a conversation composes and even “orchestrates” his/her own words, but unless some type of threat is made to compel others to say things unwillingly, all the participants had agency and both composed and “orchestrated” their own words. No one was a Chatty Cathy doll having their strings pulled by the Shepherd. Shepherd was clever but she was no Svengali. If anything, there was a power imbalance in favour of the three idiots. I presume two highly educated professors possess the competency to say what they mean and the skills to avoid being manoeuvred to say things they don’t.

      It’s not mired in legal problems. There’s an ongoing civil lawsuit.

      I encourage you to cease your lying.

    • Ray Andrews says

      Evidence? She proclaims it. True, she could then script her own performance, but what she records are the genuine attitudes of the others.

  19. Jezza says

    What does the Honey Badger do when he’s not badgering honeys? He sounds like a big brave boy, doesn’t he? I suspect his bluster is meant to cover some shameful deficiency, poor lad. I thoroughly agree with Blitz442: most people are profoundly stupid – well, you are aren’t you, HB – and nothing can be gained by poking them in the ear with a sharp stick. I’m clever enough not to engage with them. I would never call the genderly perplexed emotional cripples, even though that is what I actually believe.

  20. a bee ee? says

    And yet, and yet. . . Can anyone imagine all this taking place even 20-30 years ago, in a time when same sex marriage wasn’t even on the public opinion radar screen. Compare that to the furious reaction to the North Carolina public bathroom controversy four years ago in which the enacted statute requiring bathroom users to visit the one of their biological sex. A federal court (of course) threw it out, the entire force of a boycott by corporate America was brought to bear on the state, and the state AG refused to fulfill his job responsibilities by defending the statute.

    When the dust settled, that AG still managed to get elected governor by the slim margin of 5,000 votes. In so-called conservative North Carolina yet. Can anyone imagine Jesse Helms winning there today? There is simply no idea too looney for today’s American public to embrace enthusiastically in the name of being “enlightened” and “open-minded”.

  21. The Spectator is a right-wing magazine specializing in giving an intellectual veneer to all sorts of hate. Sofocleous was properly removed from an editorial position because he decided to participate in a Spectator campaign by promoting it on Twitter.

  22. Has there been any rigorous research on the genesis and funding of the “trans rights” movement? Civil rights issues such as women’s rights and gay marriage were movements that grew organically and developed over time. This trans issue seems to have dropped into our culture almost overnight and those on the advocacy side are uwaveringly militant in their views and tactics. It just does not seem plausible that this movement dropped into the political sphere without a great deal of pre-planning and ideological and financial support.

    • It’s not the result of a formal conspiracy, but it is a result of the tidal wave of postmodernism coming out of universities and pouring into government beurocracies and HR departments, and it is being used as battering ram by ideological radicals to deconstruct sex and gender.

    • Sprays Schemaly wrote in Salon 2007 “Where did the T in LGB come from”. Her conclusion was “it came from above and outside LGB” .

      Other more recently my tracked the big money behind transgenderism. $1,500 for e can vulnerable teen put on harmful puberty blockers.

      There’s mega-billions behind gender totalitarians.

    • Amy, I recall an article in the Federalist about the money behind the trans movement. One name I also remember is Jennifer Pritzker or something similar. Give it a google search.

  23. ga gamba says

    A reminder that both radfems such as TERFs and gendertrenders are extremists.

    In the TERF versus gendertrender war the sideline is the side to pick. We’re better off as they destroy each other.

  24. Simple test: does a physician need to know the biological sex of the transitioning/transitioned person when prescribing and administering that transition?

  25. Rashid Haddad says

    There is no such thing as a trans. It’s just a guy pretending to be a woman. XY = male. Period.

    • @Rashid Haddad: oh no, you’ve shattered all my illusions! time to detransition! [smile]

      two things, though, which I mean seriously:

      — trans men exist, too you know.

      — I live as a woman but I don’t “pretend”. I mean, I haven’t convinced myself that I grew up as a girl since birth. I decided, after a lot of struggle, that I would have a happier life if I transitioned so I transitioned. it hardly solved all my problems but if I could do it again I would have done so earlier.

  26. Indie Wifey says

    No longer having to hunt or farm or whatever, we’ve all got too much time on our hands. In first world societies, we are left to occupy ourselves; so,
    schools of thought and sciences are concocted today in the same way theologians once composed complex religious dogmas so that all the lucky thinkers, somehow otherwise provided for, could think n theorize n argue over them for centuries to come.

    The rabbit hole is lined with bookshelves.

    perceived need of body parts or ills maintained as identity platforms serve in attention quests amidst the noise glut tech has granted every last one of us, for “normalcy” is no longer chic, as it renders one on the quiet/invisible/un-clicked side of life, and who wants that? As struggle, unhappiness, sadness and so on are no longer permitted as normal components of life’s journey, in true capitalistic fashion, we buy our way out of it/them, over and over again.

    So, it boils down to the industries created, grown and sustained as the means to purchase “fixes,” from reproduction to aesthetics to identity wardrobes, that, as they allow the few to attain obscene wealth, are the protected mon$ters the masses happily rationalize, intellectualize and feed their last crumb$

  27. Damon says

    I’ll believe in this ‘trans’ rubbish when a trans woman wins the world heavyweight boxing championship.

    • @Damon: I think you mean trans man wins the World Heavyweight Boxing championship.

      anyway, your statement comes a misunderstanding of what transgender theory says. I do not champion transgender theory, which I view as a cartoonish oversimplification, but at least know what it says so you can debate with its believers. transgender theory explicitly draws a distinction between biological sex and inner sex (or gender).

  28. Defenstrator says

    On the one hand, I have some sympathies for the writer. On the other I know someone who transitioned way back in the 90s and they were definitely born in the wrong body, so I don’t think this is entirely a mental health issue.

    What I know for sure is that the TERFs are finally discovering how feminists treat men, and that their suffering is something they brought on themselves by normalizing this form of attack.

  29. Ray Andrews says

    “have the capacity to make…reasoned, logical decision[s]” about whether they want their breasts removed—because if they “want breasts later on in [their] life, [they] can go and get them.”

    Oh pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth that I am meek and gentle with these butchers.

    Are we really going to allow these criminals to slice up our children? The middle ages are not over.

  30. disperatereasoning says

    Gender diaphoria is no joke. It sucks, it is going to make your life hell in the long run. I can’t imagine having to deal with that shit day in and day out. I think it’s important to differentiate that from the transtrenders and crazy activists. One of my good friends is trans, and she gets just as angry at the trans activists trying to pretend like gender is just a “construct” or trying to pressure teens into coming out as trans. Bottom line, we should have compassion for the mental illness that is real gender diaphoria (up to and including transitioning if that makes their life better). But, that doesn’t mean you have to get into bed with the militant crazies in that camp, and there are many.

    • @disperatereasoning

      I hope your friend is able to find some peace. I can only imagine the frustration of being “represented” by someone who you completely disagree with.

      I am appalled by the current trans-movement and do not think there is any care towards the people they are supposed to “help.”

    • @disperatereasoning: thank you for saying this. I oppose the concept of “mental illness” as unscientific, but otherwise completely there with this. otherwise, yeah! (I speak from firsthand experience, having transitioned myself.)

  31. Pingback: Trans Activists’ Campaign Against ‘TERFs’ has Become an Attack on Science – Quillette – Miroslav Imbrisevic

  32. Since when was “TERF” ever a slur? People need to stop conflating “insult” with “slur,” (though, to be honest, “slur” seems to be conflated with just about everything nowadays). TERF, as far as I have known the term for the past half-year, has always been used to refer to the kinds of radical feminists who have an irrational tendency to exclude transgender people for no reason other than a misguided pack mentality, as if the transgender were seen as some sort of male-loyal infiltrator seeking to worm their way into the movement and dismantle it from the inside out.

    Whether or not trans people should be allowed into women’s spaces is entirely irrelevant to the TERF. The TERF is just angry that what they see as a man is trying to steal some of their oppression points. That’s the insult. It’s not a slur any more than the word “racist” is a slur.


      Take your misogyny elsewnere.

      Penis is male.

      Women earned our sex-based protections. For a reason.

      Our sex is not a costume or identity. Biological. Material fact.

      Not a male fetish.

  33. D-Rex says

    Hey Badger, how on earth did someone as stupid as you manage to stumble across a site such as Quillette?

  34. Chase says

    Penis is male. – We agree!

    Women earned their sex-based protections. For a reason – So you’re admitting that you have privilege. We agree again! (Although it seems odd that you could’ve “earned” those protections in a Patriarchal system.

    Our sex is not a costume or identity. Biological. Material fact. – We agree for a third time! (and your gender is your costume/identity – not sex)

    Not a male fetish – Disagree & just wrong. It’s definitely a fetish, although most fetishes are found in men (foot fetish), women have the same gross narrative, just a less publicized one (rape fetish) that no one would dare bring up – or sell in a terrible book / movie that sold entirely to one gender (deliberately used to include all perceived women).

    Not a male rapist.

  35. Mary Cuckins says

    I will intervene in this nonsense… right after I’m done roaring with laughter over how the feminists are choking on one gigantic, ghastly taste of their medicine.

  36. Chris says

    As a man, I don’t believe that men should tell women what to do.
    There are however some men who fetishise their view of women. This is o.k. in my view so long as it does not affect women’s rights.
    The movement to change toleration of difference to a legitimisation of rights is not in my view just because it takes away from the rights of women.
    In the U.K. it seems that we are rapidly heading towards gender self identification becoming legal reality. Most people are not yet aware of the changes that will result from a policy that is intended to be progressive.
    It is not possible for something to be true just because you say so, even if it is a law. This situation is different from the correction of past wrongs. I don’t know how this will play out, but I suspect that self identification will harm the cause it seeks to promote.

    P.S. quilette, I hope you have banned the troll.

  37. Aerth says

    With sport, it should be very simple: transgender should either agree to hormonal treatment that will lower testosterone to level that is acceptable in women competitions or they start with men. Or not start at all.

  38. Cassandra’s First Mate says

    This type of post-rational craziness, along with all the other batshit insane weirdness that is getting massive airtime these days, suggests industrial civilization, at least in the West, is in decline. It’s pretty clear that something is going on that can’t easily be explained away as radical politics, as even radicals used to present logical and coherent arguments. Sure, there is the post-modern critical theory influence but what led to this stuff being championed by mainstream politicians and media that considers itself neutral and objective?

    I’ve read a few pieces that claim descent into irrational superstition (combined with other factors, e.g., elites that are out of touch with the majority) is typical in societies that are in terminal decline. It’s a compelling argument. Of course, believing that science and progress are destined to lead to the most superior society ever (not to mention the insane belief that infinite economic growth is possible on a planet with finite resources) is just as irrational and deluded as PoMo identity politics. But I bet few posters here see it that way. Yet civilizations have risen and fallen since the beginning of human history and Western civilization is clearly coming off the rails.

    I bet the current crisis will not resolve itself and the brief period of universal economic prosperity that set our society apart from all others will not return. I also predict many of the people who claim to champion reason and science will not be able to accept the reality of a declining civilization and, in their own way, prove to be just as blinkered and deluded as the PoMo fanatics.

  39. Pingback: QotD: “Trans Activists’ Campaign Against ‘TERFs’ has Become an Attack on Science” | Anti-Porn Feminists

  40. Barbara Piper says

    Lyotard did propose that “postmodernism” is the suspicion of any “claim of any discourse to be grounded in truth.” But to conclude from this that “The result of such an outlook is that superstition and blind dogma are elevated to the status of knowledge obtained through science and rationality.” is kinda the opposite of what postmodernism implies. A genuinely postmodern stance would be suspicious of any discourse, claim or statement that presumes to be “knowledge obtained through science and rationality.”

  41. R Henry says

    Let’s use words which have objective meaning–“trans sexual” is NOT such a word.

    Sex is determined at conception, and is unchangeable. This is scientific fact. As such, the word “transsexual” is meaningless.

  42. Science is whatever current liberal ideology says it is. It follows the same pattern, after culture changes scientists suddenly “discover” that the scientific consensus is wrong and is changed to fit whatever liberal ideology is at issue.

  43. So, in conclusion, this article has nothing to do with vaccination. A rather clumsy attempt by the author to engender some sort of credibility by reference to a completely unrelated subject.

    “To cite the historically verifiable fact that someone named Bruce Jenner once existed is now seen as a sort of religious heresy. And like all heresies, it must be ritualistically expunged—not because it is factually wrong, but because it is seen as morally wrong.”

    Well this person still exists. They haven’t died. So to say this person “once existed” is not factually correct insofar as it suggests they no longer exist. The name “Bruce Jenner” is simply a reference, a title. It is arbitrarily created and can be arbitrarily destroyed. It’s like saying the colour purple is spelled P U R P L E. Which is “factual” in a sense but also superfluous. The colour purple would have exactly the same qualities even if you called it pink. Similarly this person’s soul is still the same soul whatever they call themselves.

    So why the fixation on needing to refer to a person by an identity that they might not prefer other than to cause offense and to be offensive? Why not choose the identity that they prefer?

    For me it’s like going out of one’s way to say Julian Vigo’s nose is not a cute nose. Kinda bent and funny shaped. The wicked witch of the east probably wouldn’t envy it. Nothing I’d like to snog. Probably could take a poll of people and a majority would agree that’s one busted up face. Would make a baby cry for sure.

    Now don’t get all sensitive because the truth train is causing you “hurt feelings”. Of course I can also imagine that your feelings aren’t hurt. Maybe you don’t have any. A sort of vulcan-human hybrid. Except you don’t have the pointy ears you’ve got the pointy nose.

    Anyway… what was the point of all this ballyhoo again?

  44. Unfortunately, the case of science being bent and corrupted by PC activists is not restricted to transgender research. The personal hate campaigns can be seen directed towards researchers in sociology, psychology, culture and history, if they dare to have non PC conclusions. Even researchers in other fields, even without touching any PC taboos can be viciously attacked if they voice any opinion that activists find non PC compliant. The worst part in all this is the willingness of universities and publication to censor and punish the non PC compliant voices.

    • Parvenue says

      I’m waiting for the PC crew to start attacking entomological research! I don’t think its too far off as a few years ago I was on an entomological site at the the University of Nebraska and, sure enough, a Professor of Entomology was using his university website to rabbit on about left wing politics. Wow! When would you even have the time?

      • franks_television says

        Maybe the professor was talking about insect wings.

  45. Pingback: Transgender activism: The war on science is an equal opportunity field | Uncommon Descent

  46. abinico warez says

    People reject medical science not because of some misinformation ‘diet’ – people reject medical science because everyone (EVERYONE) knows of somebody that has either been terribly hurt or killed by doctors. Google ‘doctors third leading cause of death’ for more information.

  47. Pingback: "Evil Womxn": The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation - Airiters

  48. Pingback: El silenciamiento de la realidad biológica y la tecnología de la ofuscación | COOMMU

  49. Pingback: "Evil Womxn": The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation - Stock Sector

  50. Pingback: "Evil Womxn": The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation – News Online

  51. Tom More says

    Excellent piece. This is nothing but the logical outcome of the acceptance of divorce. We have separated human sexuality from human nature and its natural end, children. This started with the casual acceptance of civilization destroying divorce. All of the modern ills stem from the same delusion and failure.

  52. Dark Matter says

    I’m a little late to the party on this article, but it reminded me of a series of subway ads that have been running for some time here in New York City promoting LGBTQ identity awareness (for lack of a better term).

    The slogan reads, “We are the future. We are LGBTQ youth”, and the main ad features a perfectly “diverse” group of teenagers, all very outrageous (and stereotypical) in appearance. Each subsequent individual ad poster features one or two of the teens posing, with their name and LGBTQ labels: i.e. “Chris, 18, Staten Island – Pansexual male” or “Joseph, 17, Queens – Heteromantic bisexual male”.

    The whole thing reminds me of baseball cards in a bizarre way, where viewers can read the accrued “stats” of each teen. What’s really been interesting is that almost 100% of the teens in the posters I’ve seen identify as “pansexual”. In fact, the example of Joseph above is the only I’ve seen that did not list that. It gave me the impression that simply being bisexual or gay is not interesting enough anymore for teens who have been influenced by this type of activist campaign.

Comments are closed.