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
Nooooooooooo!
A new link for Dr. Hugh’s article:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/11/surgical-sex
The man’s plainly attended to the evidence and done some soul-searching.
But do these so called sciences like “biology” have the same consensus percentages as say Climate Change? I mean, who voted on this chromosome thing and don’t you think they are being just a bit intolerant?
Sad to say, but much of this conversation, if it took place in many jurisdictions- my own included- would be denounced as transphobic hate-speech, with calls for prosecutions, resignations and ostracism.
We’re getting pretty close to that in the People’s Republic of Ontariostan:
In the spirit of Monty Python, I propose that we henceforth use “Loretta” to refer to The Jenner Formerly Known As Bruce. It will be symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Do you want a good laugh? Go read Loretta’s Wikipedia entry. The pronouns have been changed to “she.” I find it hilarious to read about how “she” won the gold medal in the “men’s decathlon” at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal.
The writer apparently couldn’t deal with the cognitive dissonance of reporting that “she” was “the Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year in 1976,” and therefore refrained from using the pronoun in that sentence.
In my thirties, I was taking classes at a local university when I read in the student newspaper the account of a 21 year old girl who sought and obtained a doctor to make her as much like a man as possible. Even now, years later, I could still weep when I think of that girl. If a young person I loved sought such surgery, I would be beside myself with grief. People who seek to maim themselves deserve all of our compassion, but we should not be celebrating their choices.
Just wondering if we really needed the photographical evidence of a troubled man.
I’m still trying to unsee the cat-dude. That hurt my brain.
I take Tommy’s use of the term “require” in the sense that “logic dictates”, wherein logic also does not have a gun to our head.
We may not need it, but he does.
Good essay Tommy, I agree with what you write but will quibble with you and say that truth requires that we not call a man a woman.
Re comment #42: here is a podcast with Walt Heyer who underwent 2 sex change operations:
http://www.catholic.com/focus/22
For me, at least, NBD. If he wishes to be called a woman, I can refer to him not only as Caitlyn but as “she.”
I don’t feel like I’m being merely indulgent, as her efforts to look like a woman have, in fact, paid off.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.”
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” – Abraham Lincoln
I can sympathize with someone like Mr Jenner who is emotionally disturbed.
I cannot sympathize with an insane society that celebrates him.
Maybe there’s a bright side to all this transexual nonsense (and the even more disturbing discussion going on about “transabled” people). In the future we white men could potentially eliminate any further arguments over the white patriarchy by claiming deep downside we see our true selves as black, female homosexuals.
From now on I insist you call me Shaniqua!
I’ve been slowly coming to the realization that I’m a lesbian in man’s body.
I am interested that he chose the name Caitlyn for this persona. The only girls I know with that name are girls in high school or college. For a lady born in the 1950s, wouldn’t Susan or Donna be more appropriate?
I don’t owe Jenner a “she” in place of “he,” as that denies the science of the matter.
In the vast majority of cases you don’t rely on science when choosing pronouns. Have you ever asked someone what their xy/xx status is so that you can address them with the proper pronoun? Has anyone here ever been asked their xx/xy status? Would you do that to a stranger? If “Caitlyn” sat down next to you in a bar, you are gonna go by appearances on what pronoun to use, not science…
I am interested that he chose the name Caitlyn for this persona. The only girls I know with that name are girls in high school or college. For a lady born in the 1950s, wouldn’t Susan or Donna be more appropriate?…
Someone said that only 5 people were named Caitlyn in her birth year. Not sure if that was an exaggeration or a actual stat. When I was set up with my current girlfriend, she was told my name was “Herbert”, she said the first thing that went through her mind was that I must be older than her, turns out I’m(53) 10 years younger than she is.
Pandora’s Box doesn’t stop with just one or two horrors once opened. You get the whole hellish collection.
I don’t know. I have a transmale friend. She may have the body of a female, but her personality is male to the point that she fulfills traditional Scotts-Irish male roles in her household, e.g. digging a (deep) hole to replace faulty (sewage) plumbing. If they needed a shed (she lives with her widowed mother, who is far from liberal on the topic of transgender identity), I’m sure she would build it. I kind of think we should treat such people with respect.
Of course there is a spectrum here, from “people who have the other gender’s personality type, possibly for biological reasons” to “the insane.” I do agree that indulging the latter is dangerous, I just don’t really see the harm where the former is concerned.
Annnnnnnnd I’m out.
It’s never been an issue. For pretty much 99% of the population, it’s easy to tell.
As the progressives suggest, this is the fault of the 1%.
I have been thinking lately that public bathrooms should be marked XX and XY. That would get rid of the whole gender argument on what bathroom to use.
There is some precedent for it. I understand the law requires that Caitlyn Jenner on medical forms disclose his male birth.
Yes, but then the exceptions you have already mention (X, XXX, XXY, etc.) would just have to hold it. Of course it could be labeled Y-Chromosome and No-Y-Chromosome.
How dare you impose your chromosomal-normative views on me!
See you in court, bigot!
Of course. The issue isn’t that we have tomboys and tammygirls(can I copyright that?). We have always had that. The issue is that we have truly mentally ill people who have latched onto the recent enthusiasm we are supposed to have for homosexuality and convinced half the country that this is normal. This cover photo is pure propaganda.
In Mein Kampf, we had the concept of the große Lüge, the big lie. A lie so big that, if accepted, would allow the rest of the propaganda to be readily accepted as well. In the battle over the nature of the family, acceptance of transexualism (and gay marriage IMO) is the big lie. Accept this and it’s over.
1. In the battle between conservatism and leftism, the center of society is either the family or the state.
2. Gender roles are essential to the understanding of the family.
3. The progressives are destroying the concept that gender can even be defined.
4. Conservatives have proven that they are willing to accept SSM and willing to debate transexualism.
5. Game, set, match.
But if someone has Swyer Syndrome, they are female but have a Y chromosome. Chromosomes control our sexual development, but I don’t think it’s quite right to say that they define our sex. By definition, females make eggs, and males make sperm. Pretty much everything else can vary. Of course, often people are sterile and don’t make gametes, but that’s an accident. In principle, a woman with no ovaries could be healed and start making eggs again. It’s also true that she could be given testes and start making sperm, but that would involve becoming something new (male, and maybe a man, depending on how “man” is defined).
Maybe restrooms could have a picture of a sperm or an ovum on them.