Jenn[d]er and Other Confusions
By Clarice Feldman in the American
Thinker
Bruce Jenner’s decision to take
hormone treatment, wear a wig, call himself Caitlyn, get tarted up and pose in
a corset for the cover of Vanity Fair has created a media
avalanche, despite the fact that transgendered folk make up a truly small
percentage of Americans. It’s been estimated that 700,000 or 0.03 percent of Americans are transgendered and most but not all of
these are what’s called transitioning to another sex.
If
this confuses you, it’s because the terms “gender” and “sex” have themselves
been undergoing transition, as Grammarist explains:
Gender was traditionally used mainly in grammar, language, and
linguistics contexts to refer to the sex assigned to nouns (especially in
non-English languages). For example, the gender of the French noun maison
(house) is feminine, while the gender of livre (book) is
masculine. Words of the same gender tend to have similar endings, and they
affect the forms of some of the surrounding words. Sex,
meanwhile, was traditionally the term for males or females viewed as a
group.
In recent decades, the meaning of
sex has narrowed, and the word is now mainly confined to uses having to do with
sexual intercourse and sexual organs. Gender, meanwhile, is increasingly
used to refer to a person’s maleness or femaleness. For instance, we tend to
say that a boy’s gender is male and a girl’s gender is female. Of
course, the term is more complicated than that, and gender identity is
not always tied to one’s sex organs. This at least partially explains why gender is
now preferred in this extended use; gender denotes identity,
which can be fluid and complicated, whereas what sex organs one has is pretty
straightforward.
Sex is still sometimes used in its traditional senses. No one
considers it wrong, but it tends to give way to gender for the
reasons mentioned above and also because gender is considered more
appropriate in contexts where sex and sexuality are not to be brought up.
With the greater acceptance of
gender fluidity and availability of surgery to add something or subtract
something external (genital reconstruction and breast implantations), many
jurisdictions have included transgenders as a protected class in laws against
various kinds of discrimination .A whole army of helpers for pay have not
surprisingly also arrived on the scene. The Washington Post style
section notes that in addition to lawyers and surgeons who work with
transgenders there are voice coaches, therapists, and feminine-image
consultants, voice and hair-removal specialists.
The Motherless Child (Radical
Feminists versus Transmen)
Female transgenders who have
undergone such surgery are called transmen. Male transgenders who have are
called transwomen. (Figures are sketchy but there are about 3 times more
transwomen than transmen.)
In either case they have only the
new outward appearance of the opposite sex, none of the internal workings
of the opposite sex. Transmen, that is women who have adopted a male identity
and undergone hormone and surgical treatments to alter their appearance, still
have the internal equipment they were born with and on rare occasions --
perhaps 41 -- with another switch in hormone treatments have been able to give birth, Transwomen never can.
All of this makes the statement of
the Nation’s Michelle Goldberg quoting young radical feminists utterly
ludicrous. On “All In With Chris Hayes” this week, she said:
...that many young feminists
"no longer want to use the word 'woman' in relation to abortion because it
excludes trans men." There's a lot of "conceptual murk to clear
away," she added with admirable understatement, "but among younger
people that I've talked to, it almost seems amazing to them that anybody would
question the need to have gender-neutral language."
The primary sources of abortion data
in the US -- the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute -- don’t collect
information on the gender identity of those who seek abortion, but
conversations with abortion providers and others suggest the number of
transgender men who want to end a pregnancy is very low. I don’t see how it
denies “the existence and humanity of trans people” to use language that
describes the vast majority of those who seek to end a pregnancy. Why can’t
references to people who don’t identify as women simply be added to references to
women? After all, every year over 2,000 men get breast cancer and over 400 die,
and no one is calling for “women” to be cut out of breast-cancer language so
that men will feel more comfortable seeking treatment. If there was such a
call, though, I wonder what would happen. Women have such a long history of
minimizing themselves in order not to hurt feelings or seem self-promoting or
attention-demanding. We are raised to put ourselves second, and too often,
still, we do.
Maybe
like the People’s Front of Judea dolts in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian the
young feminists should all just agree that while men actually can’t have
babies no matter their outward appearance, as a symbolic move “against
oppression”, these men have the right to have babies or abort the ones
they can’t actually have.
B. Elsewhere in Media and
Administration Silliness
Meanwhile, the media is ignoring
issues of far greater consequence and otherwise beclowning themselves.
1) Relishing Being a Beheading
Target
CNN’s Erin Burnett interviewed
Pamela Geller after it was learned that she was the initial target of the man
who tried to behead a Boston cop.
Referring to the Draw Mohammed
contest Geller sponsored (of course Burnett used the honorific “The Prophet
Mohammed” though she certainly would never refer to the Prophet Moses or the
“Savior Christ”) she asked: “Do you on some level relish being the target
of these attacks?”
Geller responded to this absurd
question, “Relish being the target? Who self-promotes to get killed?” She said
she has recruited an “an army of security” for protection and criticized the
media for siding with “those that would target me.”
2) Paying Illegal Immigrants Tax
Refunds for Taxes They Didn’t Pay
EXECUTIVE AMNESTY WITH BENEFITS: The
IRS has confirmed to Congress that individuals granted amnesty by President
Obama’s unilateral lawmaking ”executive action” will indeed qualify for a
refund of back taxes, even if they never filed a tax return:
IRS lawyers have ruled that
once illegal immigrants get numbers, they can go back and re-file for up to
three previous years’ taxes and claim refunds even for time they were working
illegally.
The lawyers said since the EITC is a
refundable credit, that’s allowed even when the illegal immigrants worked off
the books and never paid taxes in the first place.
Terrific -- so the President can
take executive action that not only transforms individuals whom our law
classifies as “deportable” into “not deportable,” he can simultaneously confer
upon them multiple benefits, including work permits and now, tax refunds, which
will be funded by law-abiding individuals who are present in the country
legally.
The conferral of benefits -- now
even more significant than previously believed -- is a key indicator that
President Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration are not, in fact,
mere “prosecutorial discretion,” as he asserts. Prosecutorial discretion
allows the executive branch to prioritize enforcement given the reality of
limited resources; it does not grant the executive branch authority to go
further and grant benefits to lawbreakers.
3) TSA Continues to Foul Up
Last week even though I passed a
security clearance for a global entry pass I was prohibited by TSA from
bringing a circular thread cutter onboard or a stick blender,
neither of which I can figure out how to weaponize. On the other hand, the
Transportation Security Administration failed to stop
undercover agents in 67 out of 70 recent probes of TSA screening. These agents
carried fake weapons through checkpoints at major airports across the country and
were not stopped.
4) Harvard Law Professor and the Atlantic Illustrate Foggy Thinking
Try not to laugh, but Lawrence
Lessig thinks inevitable Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would
be a great “champion” for abolishing political corruption by way of
“campaign-finance reform.” Writing for the Atlantic, the Harvard law prof
argues in the spirit of the old Vulcan proverb: “Only Nixon can go to China.”
5) Time Magazine’s Miss Piggy Editorial
Perhaps inspired by the very
well-paid Chelsea Clinton, known for her hard hitting interview with the Geico
gecko, Time ran an op-ed
by the Muppets’ Miss Piggy entitled “Why I am a Feminist Pig”. Maybe next
week they’ll interview her on whether trans men should be included in the abortion
debate.
6. The New York Times and the Rubios’ Traffic Tickets
Undoubtedly as important to them as
the never-ending Clinton Foundation payoff scandals and record destruction or
the administration stonewalling on the IRS targeting of administration critics
and political opponents, the paper assigned three people -- Alan Rappeport,
Steve Eder, and Kitty Bennett -- to report on Marco Rubio and his wife’s
traffic infractions since 1993. (He had all of 4, his wife had more.) Worse
than giving space to such nonsense it turns out that they got the story from
Clinton opposition researchers and then, when caught out
megaphoning them, pretended they’d dug this up themselves.
"In order to make this hit on
Rubio work, [the] reporters
[snip]
had to combine Marco Rubio’s driving
record with someone who is not Marco Rubio. Namely, his wife.
This would be like claiming that
Hillary Clinton and her husband had sexually assaulted numerous women. I mean,
it’s true in one sense, but it’s a totally weird thing to group together."
7) Elsewhere in the real world
In case you find what the media
covers distracting and idiotic, here are some of the many matters that really
should be of concern.
We should begin with a total
economic blockade on ISIS-controlled areas, notifying all governments that the
United States will cut off economic intercourse with any country from whose
jurisdiction persons or goods reach ISIS, or within which any ISIS-related
financial transactions occur. Air patrols over the desert access routes can
finish starving the cutthroats as a U.S. expeditionary force moves in around
them. Never again must Americans be sacrificed in house-to-house fighting.
Artillery and bombs from B-52s should do the bulk of the killing. The
expeditionary force would finish off survivors. No prisoners. The Geneva
Convention does not apply to pirates or cutthroats.
U.S. forces should come home quicker
than they left, having minded our business by showing what happens to those who
harm America.
3. Iran Continues to Ignore its
Obligations and the Administration Doesn’t Care
In one of his many emails for The Israel Project Omri Ceren notes that Iran is
increasing its enriched uranium stocks and the administration is laughing this
off:
On a policy level, the ISIS analysis
emphasizes that Iran's refusal to meet its obligations "show the risk
posed by relying on technical solutions that have not yet been demonstrated by
Iran." Tehran is under sanctions and in the middle of negotiations -- and
still can't be relied upon. The risks of Iranian intransigence post-sanctions
relief are straightforward.
Politically, observers may worry
about the seriousness with which the Obama administration will take Iranian
violations of the future nuclear deal, given that they're literally laughing
off concerns of current Iranian cheating that one of the world's best experts
says are “legitimate questions” .
4. The Feds Still Have Insecure Data
Storage And Critical Information Continues to Be Stolen
Chinese hackers seem to have hacked into Interior Department Office of Personnel management
records and stolen three decades of security clearance information (including
that of intelligence agents), this is the second known hack of federal records
in recent years and though it occurred in December this major security breach
was not discovered until April.