While clearing the last of the old decking and prepping the area for the new rose beds, I found myself pondering about this whole trans business. All the agonised cries of ‘misgendering’ and so forth. Also the desire to be considered ‘real women’ and be allowed into hitherto inappropriate places like women’s changing rooms. That and protecting biological women from the predations of the faux-trans, i.e. males who just put on a dress and claim this is all it takes. It seems to me there is a logical and relatively low cost solution that can be applied to the satisfaction of all. Well possibly.
This may upset some people for various reasons, but upsetting a few people seems to be a hobby of mine. And in my perambulations through YouTube comment threads this becomes ever more common. However, in the spirit of tolerance and equity I would like to say that I feel the vociferous male to female trans lobby has a point, and that they should be allowed access to women’s spaces, but only on one unbreakable condition; they have to give something up first. Specifically their sexual impedimenta, because those are the bits that cause the problems for women.
In medical terms it should be stipulated that if these ‘trans’ people want to join the desired club or clubs, then they should at least be willing to pay the basic membership fee of becoming at least half way female. Specifically a penectomy and bilateral orchiectomy before being allowed to access said spaces. Or to put it more crudely;
As for going the whole hog. Well I’m afraid unless a new technology is developed that can totally alter your XY to XX, superficially neuter is about as good as anyone is going to get. Brow ridges and superficial features can be altered, sexual organs removed surgically, organs can be shrunk by hormones, but our biology is immutably linked to our sex at birth. It’s no use simply calling yourself Loretta one gay morning and walking through the distaff door. This isn’t people being cruel or ‘hateful’, it’s simple anatomy and physiology. It’s just about safeguarding those (on average) not as physically strong or robust.
Women and men think differently too, that much cannot be denied. It’s biologically baked in. Our endocrine and reproductive systems have evolved our brains for different functions. Males tend to be larger, faster and heavier too. There is, admittedly, a little crossover, but only in extreme cases, and no amount of social conditioning will make it otherwise.
There is also the simple point that since time immemorial men have formed male only groups and women have formed female only peer groups. This is natural. It is a function of instinctive human behaviour for those who fit certain personality and gender subtypes to seek out those who most resemble themselves and what makes them comfortable. Like football clubs or various special interest societies. Or even simply a loose social group who wish to use a particular social space at a given time. They all have a common thread and no amount of busybody social engineering can change that.
So my point is that women need exclusively female spaces / company, and men need exclusively male spaces / company to fully relax and function well. It’s a social / emotional need as much as anything. If you are one of that tiny minority of inbetweeners then you’ll just have to form your own exclusive spaces and leave everyone else’s alone. No-one is really excluding the inbetweeners, it’s just that the inbetweeners are busy painting themselves into a corner and a lot of excitable and ignorant people are trying to hold a tiny mirror up to reality and chop off all the bits that won’t fit. Which never works.
Personally, I think the Who nailed it back in the 60’s.
As for the whole pronoun business, there is an important bit of wisdom that was vouchsafed to me by a one time boon companion; You are who you are, but nobody else is. Don’t expect them to be. This axiom has passed destruction testing and I think it applies here in spades.
Anyway. That’s enough pontificating from me for the moment. There is work to be done outdoors and it is my function to do it. I don’t care that the UK 77th Brigade were told to monitor and harass those critical of the lockdowns and masks. Or may even now be assisting the UK Police in finding people who they think are saying subjectively ‘offensive’ things. We knew it was our own military and law enforcement being weaponised against us., and the suffering those units have induced is real. Which means governments all over the world are criminalising dissent, no matter how well founded that disagreement is.
I did say at the time that there was a section of the ruling class pushing these crazy ideas. Like the strange idea is that you can alter human behaviour by suppressing it. Well you can, for a while, but only as long as the suppression is dialled all the way up. Think of what the powers that be are doing as stretching our social elastic all the way to it’s limit. At some point said social elastic will snap, and those doing the stretching will get hurt.
This situation could be avoided by simply dialling back the suppression, but I don’t think certain parties have the simple common sense to desist. They seem too arrogant for that.