‘She’s Not a Woman’

 

I find it difficult to understand how anyone could seriously formulate the sentence that is the title of this post.  “She’s not a woman.”  It seems like madness, to me.  If words have meaning, that sentence has to be false.

The offending party here is Megyn Kelly.  Kelly is supposedly a conservative and appears to be an intelligent woman.  Yet she has somehow adopted a view of the world, or a definition of terms, that led her to make that statement, “She’s not a woman.”

What, pray tell, does the word “she” mean?  For almost my entire life and, as far as I can tell, for the past several hundred years in the English-speaking word, “she” has been the pronoun used to refer to a woman (or female animal).  “She is not a woman” is an irrational, contradictory sentence, as logically incoherent as “this statement is false.”

This quote comes from Kelly’s interview of Matt Walsh, reporting on Walsh’s interview of an anonymous female college swimmer who is a teammate of William Thomas.  William Thomas is a roughly 20-year-old man who calls himself “Lia” Thomas, claims to be a woman, and has been competing in women’s collegiate swimming.  He has ambitions of competing in women’s swimming at the Olympics.

Here is the interview (about eight minutes long):

I actually find myself in agreement with a statement that Thomas made, in an interview clip in the middle of this video. He said:

You can’t go halfway and be like, I support trans-women and trans-people, but only to a certain point.  Where if you support trans-women as women, and they’ve met all the NCAA requirements, then I don’t know if you can really say something like that.  Trans-women are not a threat to women’s sports.

I think that he’s right about the first two sentences here.  There is no halfway.  Of course, his statement is absurd, as one would think that meeting any sensible requirements for women’s sports would involve, you know, actually being a woman.

Kelly’s response strikes me as something out of a Monty Python skit.  I do think that she is serious, and it makes me think that she is deranged.  I do believe that she is deranged, in a specific way — for some reason, Kelly has accepted a completely incoherent redefinition of terms.  This redefinition leaves her without the vocabulary to express herself, leading to the formulation of logically incoherent sentences.  Kelly’s response to the clip of William Thomas is:

OK.  Then I won’t go halfway.  Then I’ll stay on zero, and I won’t meet you halfway at all, cause I’m not going to ten.  She, like, the nerve of that man, for her, how does she know?  She’s not a woman.  She doesn’t get to say, after 20 years living as a man that now she’s a woman, and anyone objecting isn’t really supportive of trans.  Like, did you swim in the pool, like all of your teammates did, when they were going through puberty, and they started getting their periods, and it’s a terrifying event for a young girl to get into a damn pool because you don’t know what’s going to happen, you haven’t managed things yet?  Did you swim with breasts growing off of you, and try to figure out how to move your arms and still win?  You didn’t.  You went overnight from male to female, and your accomplishments on the women’s leader board are not that of a woman.  They’re not.  But she says we’re not allowed to meet her halfway.  just out of, to be polite, or to be kind, or to try to be loving and respectful.  It’s zero or ten.

Hearing this, I think to myself, self, this is satire, right?  John Cleese is surely about to chime in with a funny line, don’t you think?  What in the world is wrong with Megyn Kelly?  This harangue is just incoherent.

I think that it’s worse.  Kelly is a big part of the problem, in my view, and so are all of you who go along with this linguistic dance of pretending that some men are women, and some women are men.  I think that Kelly actually identifies the problem.  Kelly wants to “meet her halfway” to be “polite” or “kind” or “loving and respectful.”

I dissent.  It is not impolite, or unkind, or unloving, or disrespectful to tell a man that he is not a woman.  Or to refuse to refer to a man as “she” or “her.”  Or, for that matter, to refuse to refer to Matthew Thomas by the female name “Lia” that he wants to use in support of the lie that he is a woman.

I’ll tell you what is impolite, and unkind, and unloving, and disrespectful, in my view.  Calling me any of these things for speaking the truth.  William Thomas is a man masquerading as a woman and insisting that everyone call him “Lia.”  I say no.

I do credit Matt Walsh for refusing to refer to this man, William Thomas, as “she” or “her.”  I am critical of Walsh for referring to him as “Lia.”

Guess what we got when we were persuaded, or browbeaten, to engage in this nonsense.  A large outbreak of dreadful confusion about sexual identity among teens, especially teenage girls.  Nice job, people.

I think that this is an example of what you get when you accommodate a lie.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 122 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Sadly you guys are all wrong.  It looks like the law is going to define the concept to woman differently.  Thus it will be so.  Actually it is so at the moment and will most likely expand as the government wants it to.   

    • #1
  2. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: There is no half-way.

    I think there is.

    A person undergoing a transition (hopefully because all counseling and therapy failed) and has begun hormone treatment, has had either breast augmentation surgery or a mastectomy (depending on the direction of transition), but has NOT had the genetalia operation (affectionately known a lopitoffomy or an addadictomy – thank you, Rush!), I would consider “halfway” there.  Just my humble opinion, always subject to ridicule . . .

    But even so, the male-to-female transitioners can maintain a good chunk of their male physical attributes even after hormones and the lopitoffomy.  They should not be allowed to participate in biological women’s sports, period.

    OTOH, there are those rare women who can compete in men’s sports, and I don’t have a problem if they compete – but with a caveat.  There should be no special rules for them such as “do not tackle” in football or “you cannot block their shot” in basketball.  In pro golf, they play from the men’s tees, and so forth.

    • #2
  3. Retail Lawyer Member
    Retail Lawyer
    @RetailLawyer

    I want to get a female dog.  Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law?  My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    • #3
  4. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia.  I don’t, however, know if this is the case.  But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

     

    • #4
  5. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    I would not go so far as to say she’s deranged.  She’s just very wrong on a belief that I believe comes from a well-meaning intention–namely, she has adopted the conviction that the polite thing to do is to refer to someone by his/her preferred pronoun.  This conviction then leads to the absurd statement that “she is not a woman”.  I would hope Kelley comes around to see the absurdity.  In fact, I suspect that Thomas would find the statement “she is not a woman” to be impolite too.  It would be better for Kelley to realize that, in the eyes of the radical left, anything short of full adoption of their language rules (changeable though those rules may be) is impolite at best and violent at worst.  Perhaps if she realizes that, then she will be less worried about using the “wrong” pronoun.

    But in fairness, I don’t think she’s deranged–just well-meaning, but wrong.  

    • #5
  6. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I want to get a female dog. Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law? My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    How much does it cost to buy a b****?

    • #6
  7. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play.  If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order.  However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie.  So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name.  So essentially, I could see handling the matter one way in private dealings with Thomas and another when discussing the matter publicly.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    • #7
  8. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I can accommodate a lie right up to the point where post-penis Lia is stealing opportunities that were set aside specifically for females through chronic testosterone-doping throughout his/her/etc. life. 

    Either we open every sporting event that has some variety of winning attached to any sex, or we keep it non co-ed. 

    And if that means Lia’s feelings are hurt, too [redacting] bad. 

    • #8
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    OK, we don’t agree here, either as to the name or the persuasive case.   It’s a long ways from the objective misuse of a pronoun.

     

     

    • #9
  10. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I want to get a female dog. Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law? My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    How much does it cost to buy a b****?

    Also, that female dog should be well-advised to produce the totality of that currency in her custody which must be rendered to me upon such demand.  The totality.

    • #10
  11. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I want to get a female dog. Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law? My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    How much does it cost to buy a b****?

    Everything you own and will own. Oh, you mean a dog?

    • #11
  12. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    OK, we don’t agree here, either as to the name or the persuasive case. It’s a long ways from the objective misuse of a pronoun.

    I agree with Hoyacon here, as I should like to reserve the right to change my name to Clarabelle or Astarte or some such, without demanding that the language itself be changed.

    • #12
  13. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Franco (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I want to get a female dog. Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law? My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    How much does it cost to buy a b****?

    Everything you own and will own. Oh, you mean a dog?

    To be honest, she was good from far.

    • #13
  14. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    OK, we don’t agree here, either as to the name or the persuasive case. It’s a long ways from the objective misuse of a pronoun.

    You are correct that we don’t agree here.  I think that you are incorrect about everything else.

    First, you claim that there is no reason not to call him Lia.  I articulated a reason, and Justin concurred.  So that’s a reason.  You may not think that it’s a good reason, but it’s a reason.

    Second, you have not stated any basis for your view.  I infer that your underlying premise is that a person is entitled to adopt any name that he or she wishes.  I do not think that this is a proper rule, and it has not been the rule in our law.  Details may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there is a common legal principle that one cannot adopt a name that is misleading, or that would perpetrate a fraud.

    For a man to adopt a woman’s name, particularly in the context of a man claiming to be a woman, is done purely to perpetrate a fraud.  The fraud is the man’s claim that he is a woman.

    I think that by going along with this, you (and Kelly and Walsh) are making the problem worse.

    I think that this entire issue is an outgrowth of the misguided feminist idea that women and men should be treated “equally,” which is complicated to do, but generally seems to imply that they are to be treated “the same.”  I think that this is a terrible idea.  As one example, a woman behaving decently deserves to be treated as “a lady,” in my view, while it would be rather insulting to treat a man as “a lady.”  I am generally more polite to women than to men.  I do not treat my daughters as interchangeable with my sons.

    • #14
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name. So essentially, I could see handling the matter one way in private dealings with Thomas and another when discussing the matter publicly.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    I strongly disagree with this argument.  I will not concede to a demand that I lie for the sake of “politeness.”

    I think that the people being impolite, and even ridiculous, are on the other side of this issue.  I think that the claim of politeness has been weaponized in this instance.  I think that everyone should take a stand against this nonsense.  I don’t think that we have any chance of ending it until the bulk of the people do so.

    I think that I understand the desire to avoid controversy in personal relations.  For this reason, my own preference is to decline to interact with “trans” people at all.  I simply want nothing to do with them.

    Thanks to what I consider to be dubious jurisprudence on the part of Justices Gorsuch and Roberts, this is now illegal in areas covered by the anti-discrimination laws.  I am thankful that I do not make hiring decisions, so I am not in a position to directly violate the law in this area.  I am troubled that, were I an employee, my employer might feel compelled to fire me were my views known, in order to avoid a charge of tolerating a “hostile work environment.”

    • #15
  16. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    OK, we don’t agree here, either as to the name or the persuasive case. It’s a long ways from the objective misuse of a pronoun.

    You are correct that we don’t agree here. I think that you are incorrect about everything else.

    First, you claim that there is no reason not to call him Lia. I articulated a reason, and Justin concurred. So that’s a reason. You may not think that it’s a good reason, but it’s a reason.

    Taken in actual context, what I said was  “If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. ”  However, you are correct . . . if one ignores the legality of a name change sanctioned under the law, one could find some reason not to call him Lia.

    • #16
  17. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    I didn’t learn until years later that the famous fight Ben Shapiro had with the man wanting to be called a woman was with Katy Tur’s dad. Therefore, in the peculiarities of the English language, Ben was attacked because he called Robert Tur Mister Tur instead of Miss Tur.

    • #17
  18. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    I didn’t learn until years later that the famous fight Ben Shapiro had with the man wanting to be called a woman was with Katy Tur’s dad. Therefore, in the peculiarities of the English language, Ben was attacked because he called Robert Tur Mister Tur instead of Miss Tur.

    Dang.  What a tiny little circle.

    • #18
  19. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    I didn’t learn until years later that the famous fight Ben Shapiro had with the man wanting to be called a woman was with Katy Tur’s dad. Therefore, in the peculiarities of the English language, Ben was attacked because he called Robert Tur Mister Tur instead of Miss Tur.

    Under-rated comment, by the way.

    • #19
  20. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I want to get a female dog. Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law? My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    I’m an Oregonian, and I don’t think what you ask is possible in Eugene.

    • #20
  21. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    If Thomas legally underwent a name change, there is no reason not to call him Lia. I don’t, however, know if this is the case. But I would also point out that names that are not given are used throughout the culture.

     

    Yup, he can change his name but not his sex.

    • #21
  22. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    This is where the politeness matter comes into play. If I knew Thomas personally and were trying maintain cordiality, calling him “Lia” seems in order. However, Jerry makes the case persuasively that, because “Lia” is commonly a female name in our time/culture, even calling him Lia is still participating in the lie. So when engaging in a more public debate on the matter, calling him Thomas may be an effective way to avoid the issue generally and not create an unnecessary stumbling block to those open to persuasion.

    But direct questions about the matter need to be answered directly, and it seems quite reasonable to refuse to call him Lia, even if he legally changed his name. So essentially, I could see handling the matter one way in private dealings with Thomas and another when discussing the matter publicly.

    *Edited to clarify an ambiguity.

    I strongly disagree with this argument. I will not concede to a demand that I lie for the sake of “politeness.”

    I think that the people being impolite, and even ridiculous, are on the other side of this issue. I think that the claim of politeness has been weaponized in this instance. I think that everyone should take a stand against this nonsense. I don’t think that we have any chance of ending it until the bulk of the people do so.

    I think that I understand the desire to avoid controversy in personal relations. For this reason, my own preference is to decline to interact with “trans” people at all. I simply want nothing to do with them.

    Thanks to what I consider to be dubious jurisprudence on the part of Justices Gorsuch and Roberts, this is now illegal in areas covered by the anti-discrimination laws. I am thankful that I do not make hiring decisions, so I am not in a position to directly violate the law in this area. I am troubled that, were I an employee, my employer might feel compelled to fire me were my views known, in order to avoid a charge of tolerating a “hostile work environment.”

    Admittedly, this is a fraught matter that I don’t thing is quite as clear as you do.  As a Christian, although I am not to participate in sin, I am called to love my enemies.  If I were to find myself talking to Thomas, it seems perfectly fine to say something like “I know you changed your name to Lia, and out of kindness, I will call you that.  However, changing your name does not change the fact that you are a young man, so using a female name is not congruent to who you actually are.”

    If Thomas is still willing to talk after that point, at least he would know where I stood on the matter.  My guess is that the conversation would probably end though.

    • #22
  23. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…: There is no half-way.

    I think there is.

    A person undergoing a transition (hopefully because all counseling and therapy failed) and has begun hormone treatment, has had either breast augmentation surgery or a mastectomy (depending on the direction of transition), but has NOT had the genetalia operation (affectionately known a lopitoffomy or an addadictomy – thank you, Rush!), I would consider “halfway” there. Just my humble opinion, always subject to ridicule . . .

    But even so, the male-to-female transitioners can maintain a good chunk of their male physical attributes even after hormones and the lopitoffomy. They should not be allowed to participate in biological women’s sports, period.

    OTOH, there are those rare women who can compete in men’s sports, and I don’t have a problem if they compete – but with a caveat. There should be no special rules for them such as “do not tackle” in football or “you cannot block their shot” in basketball. In pro golf, they play from the men’s tees, and so forth.

    Stad, this is a thoughtful position, but I don’t think that it’s correct.  I’d like to see if I can persuade you.

    I reject the premise that “transition” is possible.  You can mutilate a body, surgically and chemically.  You can take a man, give him hormones and various surgeries, and create a simulacrum of a woman.  Likewise, you can use similar techniques to turn a woman into a simulacrum of a man.

    But you’re never, ever going to turn a man into a woman, or a woman into a man.  It is not possible.  At most, these procedures will have perpetrated a successful fraud.

    I think that this is a very bad idea.

    I also think that once you open the door to the possibility of “transition,” you create two additional problems.  First, for the dysphoric individual, I think that you undermine the likelihood of successful treatment, which would involve overcoming the dysphoric belief that the person is “trapped in the body” of the other sex.  Second, I think that you create the problem of underage “transition.”

    Because if we are going to accommodate this type of dysphoria in adulthood, I think that it is cruel to withhold such treatment from children.  Puberty will produce irreversible changes in the dysphoric individual, making it even less feasible to turn a male into a simulacrum of a female, or vice versa.

    I think that it is better to reject this accommodation.  The desire to “transition” is either insanity, or demon possession.  I don’t think that it should be encouraged by any sort of permission or acceptance.

    Sadly, I am not confident about the ability of the psychological and psychiatric professions to treat this problem, even if they were focused on ending, rather than accommodating, the dysphoria.  Which is not their focus, on the whole, at least as far as I can tell.

    • #23
  24. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    [snipped]

    Admittedly, this is a fraught matter that I don’t thing is quite as clear as you do. As a Christian, although I am not to participate in sin, I am called to love my enemies. If I were to find myself talking to Thomas, it seems perfectly fine to say something like “I know you changed your name to Lia, and out of kindness, I will call you that. However, changing your name does not change the fact that you are a young man, so using a female name is not congruent to who you actually are.”

    If Thomas is still willing to talk after that point, at least he would know where I stood on the matter. My guess is that the conversation would probably end though.

    I also agree with this.  Good way to square the circle — being forthright about what you believe in without being thoughtless.  Who knew?

    I think it is right and good to put the onus back where it belongs.

    • #24
  25. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    [snip]

    Stad, this is a thoughtful position, but I don’t think that it’s correct. I’d like to see if I can persuade you.

    I reject the premise that “transition” is possible. You can mutilate a body, surgically and chemically. You can take a man, give him hormones and various surgeries, and create a simulacrum of a woman. Likewise, you can use similar techniques to turn a woman into a simulacrum of a man.

    But you’re never, ever going to turn a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. It is not possible. At most, these procedures will have perpetrated a successful fraud.

    I think that this is a very bad idea.

    I also think that once you open the door to the possibility of “transition,” you create two additional problems. First, for the dysphoric individual, I think that you undermine the likelihood of successful treatment, which would involve overcoming the dysphoric belief that the person is “trapped in the body” of the other sex. Second, I think that you create the problem of underage “transition.”

    Because if we are going to accommodate this type of dysphoria in adulthood, I think that it is cruel to withhold such treatment from children. Puberty will produce irreversible changes in the dysphoric individual, making it even less feasible to turn a male into a simulacrum of a female, or vice versa.

    I think that it is better to reject this accommodation. The desire to “transition” is either insanity, or demon possession. I don’t think that it should be encouraged by any sort of permission or acceptance.

    Sadly, I am not confident about the ability of the psychological and psychiatric professions to treat this problem, even if they were focused on ending, rather than accommodating, the dysphoria. Which is not their focus, on the whole, at least as far as I can tell.

    Agreed.  Nobody has the right to insist that you be crazy with them.

    • #25
  26. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I want to get a female dog. Any advice on how to articulate this preference without offending anyone or breaking the law? My jurisdiction is Oregon.

    I’m an Oregonian, and I don’t think what you ask is possible in Eugene.

    But since a dog breeder’s continuance in business depends on being clear about the difference between male and female, I suspect you won’t have a problem articulating reality to a dog breeder. 

    • #26
  27. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    . . .

    Admittedly, this is a fraught matter that I don’t thing is quite as clear as you do. As a Christian, although I am not to participate in sin, I am called to love my enemies. If I were to find myself talking to Thomas, it seems perfectly fine to say something like “I know you changed your name to Lia, and out of kindness, I will call you that. However, changing your name does not change the fact that you are a young man, so using a female name is not congruent to who you actually are.”

    If Thomas is still willing to talk after that point, at least he would know where I stood on the matter. My guess is that the conversation would probably end though.

    I don’t think that coddling his misbehavior, and accepting his lie, is loving.  I think that it is the opposite of loving.  I think that he is a miscreant, and needs to be rebuked harshly.

    Jesus did this repeatedly.  Look at the seven woes that He pronounced on the Pharisees.  Look at where He called the Jews arguing with Him “children of your father the devil.”  Look at where Peter rebuked the Jewish crowd at Pentecost as having murdered the author of life.  They did not mince words.

    I think that your proposal is to tell him that using his female name “Lia” is a lie — “not congruent to who you actually are” — and I don’t understand how you think that going along with this lie is a kindness.  I think that it is playing along with his sick, twisted game.

    I have little or no sympathy with him.  I differ from Matt Walsh in this.  I do think that many people exhibiting this twisted trans phenomenon are misled into it by an ideology that I can only describe as being from the pit of Hell, but this is not an excuse.  They have moral agency.  They can make a choice.

    I do  hope that they will make a different choice.  I don’t know how to accomplish this.  I simply do not think that giving an inch, even an inch, to their lie is going to help.

    • #27
  28. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    I believe in being kind to the insane.   However,  I feel no obligation to participate in their insanity.

    • #28
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    I believe in being kind to the insane. However, I feel no obligation to participate in their insanity.

    Except to the extent that kindness makes it seem okay to be insane?

    • #29
  30. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Look.  As I related the story to my wife, I kept saying “she” about the man.  I tried to stop, but it kept coming out.  It’s simply because when talking extemporaneously about a person who you don’t know but looks and sounds like a woman, you call it “she” — and then you keep correcting yourself — or not.  It’s not an exercise in correct political speech.  It’s just speaking.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.