Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Science Requires We Not Call a Man a Woman
What’s my name? Muhammad Ali
“What’s my name? What’s my name?” In the eighth round of their 1967 bout, Muhammad Ali yelled that question to Ernie Terrell every time he hit him. Terrell refused to call the former Cassius Clay his new chosen name before the fight, and Ali wanted to make a point about it.
There was no politics to Terrell’s refusal. There was no religion about it. Terrell was trash-talking against the man who, regrettably, made trash-talking in sports mainstream. I never liked Ali the bully in the ring or Ali the coward outside the ring (full disclosure: I grew up a Joe Frazier fan).
Yet, at another moment, I did learn something from Ali about names. When Howard Cosell called him Clay, Ali corrected him and insisted on the new name. Howard then agreed, saying yes, of course, a man should be called what he wants to be called.
That’s a poignant moment in a plural society that favors individual choices and respect. I’ve always agreed that a man should be called what he wants to be called.
During my time, we’ve seen an oscillation in the black community as to how they wish to be addressed. They have favored “colored” (see NAACP), “negro,” “African-American,” and today there is a rebirth of “black.” The rest of us have, to our credit, respectfully used the favored name.
A man should be called what he wants to be called.
That’s an easy call with proper names. They are randomly chosen by parents, have no scientific rhyme or reason (though they certainly have cultural moorings), and they are changed with frequency. Surnames were traditionally changed by women upon marriage, and that is still substantially the case.
Gender and sex are different than proper names. There is some science that sets rules to follow.
The nebulous issue of gender is a product of the loose science of sociology. Since there is no discipline in that discipline, gender does not follow strict rules. It’s a social construct, and is a sliding scale between what is considered “masculine” and what is considered “feminine.”
America has a culture. It developed naturally over a couple of centuries. As in other countries, our culture developed identifiable symbols of the masculine and feminine — and, because of that, gender.
America has not been without its social shifts in masculine and feminine, whether in women entering into a variety of roles in the workforce or the current experiment with some women’s desire to enter infantry roles in the military.
It is noted with interest (not with explanation, as it is outside the subject of this treatment) that our cultural shifts have been easier to accept when it is the female attempting to take on masculine roles. It is framed as a matter of equal right — but I wonder if there isn’t something more to it when it comes to human beings. There is, after all, a masculinization process that happens to fetuses, as boys are created when the female pathway is redirected to become male. There is no such scientific process wherein a male pathway switches to female.
Perhaps, due to some subconscious dynamic, that is why there has not been the same acceptance of men trying to feminize their gender. Some change has admittedly occurred. When I was a young boy, nurses and flight attendants were women. Today, however, men are part of those work forces and none of us gives it a second thought when we see them.
Yet some things haven’t changed. A woman in pants is a 20th century invention that’s accepted today, but a man in a dress is still an oddity that will occasion repulsion in both sexes. Men don’t carry purses either — no matter how many times those who run the fashion industry try to push European handbags on us.
Masculine and feminine were not, however, simply created out of thin air. They were tied to sex — which is a different matter altogether than gender.
Sex is more rigidly defined by science. It is chromosomal. In our most common situation, female humans have XX chromosomes and male humans have XY chromosomes.
Sure, there are some rare situations that involve unusual chromosomes. Yet they don’t affect sex. Turner Syndrome is someone with one X chromosome, but that person is still female. XXX-females are still females. Klinefelter Syndrome has males with XXY chromosomes who show some female traits, but their sex is still male. Swyer Syndrome is a person whose genitalia does not perfectly match the chromosomes, but their sex is not in issue.
For the above rare medical instances, we, of course, should be open to accommodations. For now, however, we’re dealing with the huge majority of everyone else.
The science is clear on the rest of the human race. XX is a female and XY is a male.
Is Caitlyn (nee Bruce) Jenner a woman? No. The definition of ‘woman‘ has always been tied to female in every medical reference you’d like to check. ‘Man’ is similarly associated with the science of being male.
I owe Caitlyn Jenner dignity and respect. A man should be called what he wants to be called. I’ll use Caitlyn. I owe Jenner that.
I don’t owe Caitlyn an ignorance of science. That would be asking too much of me. Caitlyn is, scientifically, a man. He can lop anything off and sew anything on, but not change chromosomes. It is an imposition upon me (and quite rude I might add) for Caitlyn to insist that I ignore science. I don’t owe that to Caitlyn or anyone else.
The same is true of the pronouns “he” and “she.” They have been connected to the scientifically established male and female. I don’t owe Jenner a “she” in place of “he,” as that denies the science of the matter.
I wonder too about the idea of someone like Jenner being able to finally “be himself” (or herself, as he would have it). Isn’t that the opposite of what is going on here? Bruce Jenner is not being himself – he’s a man. He’s trying to change himself. Is this not antithetical to the stated idea of “be yourself” or “be who you are?” He is trying to change who he is. A gay man is still a man and a gay woman still a woman.
Culturally, I might be able to accept a feminized man or a masculinized woman. I can acknowledge that. Don’t ask me to deny science and agree a man is a woman because he wishes it to be.
A question for Claire Berlinski regarding the Ricochet Code of Conduct: We live by a different creed here on Ricochet. We go out of our way to treat others with dignity and respect. What will be the Ricochet rule on pronouns here? On our august, civil and well-mannered website, will we have a rule on calling Caitlyn Jenner a he or she?
Published in Culture, General
There is a man unfamiliar with furry culture and the fact that they will be next on the rights agenda.
I should’ve known I was a conservative when I was the only Frazier fan — as a ten-year-old — when my folks took me to a Ali-Frazier I viewing party at a friend’s house in Mexico City.
Shouldn’t we drop a lump of lead in his lap and see how he reacts?
“will we have a rule on calling Caitlyn Jenner a he or she?”
How about Ms. Jenner?
EJHill, Thank you for posting this article by the former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins –you beat me to it.
yeah… I’m going to continue calling him Bruce. Of course, I’ve never felt compelled to refer to him at all in the past, so I doubt I’ll feel so inclined moving forward.
In no way am I required to talk to him as I would a cat, but in no way am I prohibited from doing so either.
(Incidentally, he passed away in 2012, reportedly due to suicide.)
It’s behind a paywall. Did he retire by choice?
And exactly what did he do to earn that? By parading himself on television? By dodging vehicular manslaughter charges?
“A question for Claire Berlinski regarding the Ricochet Code of Conduct: We live by a different creed here on Ricochet. We go out of our way to treat others with dignity and respect. What will be the Ricochet rule on pronouns here? On our august, civil and well-mannered website, will we have a rule on calling Caitlyn Jenner a he or she.”
Claire’s answer: Call Caitlyn Jenner whatever you want. Do recall, however, that with every bit of attention, the Jenner formerly known as Bruce grows wealthier. And the rest of the world becomes stupider. So my editorial preference would be not to discuss this matter at all. What do we get from it, except higher ad revenues? Are they worth that to us? We’re all participating in this deplorable game, every time we buy this product or sell it. We have the power to say no. I’d prefer to exercise it.
That’s pretty much my attitude. If it wasn’t for the Kardashian connections, this would have been pretty much a one day story.
I “owe” Jenner nothing. Jenner has done nothing to benefit my life, so why should I “owe” him anything?
Jenner is a celebrity who seeks fame. I have no obligation to comply. If Jenner wanted privacy then Jenner would have stayed private.
Here it is on another site
And here is some more regrets
That’s funny. It wasn’t on the original Google link.
And yes he retired by choice. Johns Hopkins pioneered sex reassignment surgery after the Christine Jorgensen surgery in the early 50’s but have totally stopped it because it doesn’t produce positive results.
See Claire Berlinski’s comment (#40): PERFECT, as practically everything she writes!
When issues are ignored it enables politicians with radical agendae to get into office without having to discuss their intentions when campaigning.
In Ontario, our Premier is a woman who cheated on her husband with another women and then forced him to live in the basement of the family home while she and her mistress slept in the bed upstairs. She appointed a man who has been convicted on child porn and “counseling” charges to help co-write the province’s sex education curriculum.
She’s about to pass a new law that, “will ban funding for ‘any services rendered that seek to change or direct the sexual orientation or gender identity of a patient, including efforts to change or direct the patient’s behaviour or gender expression’.”
None of this came up during the election campaign.
I don’t care what people do with their own money, but ignoring social issues allows radical politicians to use the power of the state against dissenters.
Uh-oh, I could be in trouble here if we are going to be policing pronouns.
This, this, this.
To make it easier for Frank, just use hesheit.
Could have a lot of fun with CoC amendments:
“Hereafter, all persons will be referred to in the third person by their name, or the pronouns zhe or sieur.”
Extra points for un-pronounce-ability.
Personally, I think he is the perfect icon of this movement. He is, after all, the patriarch of America’s most screwed up family.
The use of the word “they” to indicate a singular of indeterminate gender has been acceptable in English for at least 600 years, and has been done by many great writers. There is no need for a new pronoun.
This is merely the most extreme form of body modification that a person can engage in. Witness:
Former patriarch. The divorce became final in March of 2015. The family has no current patriarch. Irony?
Whoever posted that cat-person picture has earned my ire. (No, I’m not going to go back to check who did it, because that would require me to see . . . that image . . . again.)
I am disturbed in my soul.
And yet, those people exist. One cannot shut one’s eyes forever.
I’ll see your Kilt and raise you a Zardoz:
This is a bit “head in the sand,” no?
I suspect we will encounter people like Jenner in our writing and in our lives, judging from the royal treatment and encouragement I saw on the news this morning.
At some point we have to figure this out.
At first glance I thought it was Rene Russo. True story.
Well, at least the gun is good.
If by “figure this out” one means “impose a language convention on the citizenry”, then no, “we” do not “have” to.
If by “we” one means “individuals” and by “figure this out” one means “decide for themselves how to think and talk about the issue of transgenderism”, in that case then sure.
If by “we” one means “the Republican Party” and by “figure this out” one means “develop an electoral strategy”, then in that case also sure.