The New York Times, a bastion of correct thinking, has published an opinion piece, jointly from a philosopher and an evolutionary biologist. It states the critical importance of sex and the dangers of subordinating it to gender, and that the shifts of language have not been organic, rather imposed from the top by institutions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/opinion/sex-assigned-at-birth.html
More like this please!
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
New York Times publishes opinion piece supporting the importance of sex
Ingenieur · 03/04/2024 21:09
Ingenieur · 03/04/2024 21:55
By way of update, I'm nearing the end of the comments, actually it's skewing much more gender critical, probably 60/40 in favour of GC.
Most of the criticisms of the article are the usual be-kinders. But one great comment said this:
Many commenters here are very muddled in their thoughts about those born with disorders of sexual development (who used to be called "intersex"). Why on earth would it be more important for doctors to know what sex they were assigned at birth (perhaps mistakenly) than their actual sex, which was determined later via DNA and other tests? Why would it be more important to know what sex they were assigned than to know that they have a disorder of sexual development? Indeed, why would the immediate, unreflective judgement of the pediatrician at the birth, perhaps mistaken, be medically important at all?
Those with disorders of sexual development are not served by calling it "sex assigned at birth" at all. It requires them to record an irrelevant mistake made at their birth. They are better off being asked what their sex is (which may have been determined later) and given a space on their medical forms to give details of their disorder.
But those who want to change our language usage here are not seeking precision. They want to use language to engineer social change. Of course language should be inclusive and precise--and we need words to refer to developing social categories. Let's make new words. The problem is with those who want to change the words for sex categories and not allow us to develop new ones, making certain things unsayable. We need a clear words for biological women and men. Women and men will do.
Helleofabore · 03/04/2024 22:08
Is there anyway to gauge the reaction to that post? Are people liking it?
Ingenieur · 03/04/2024 21:55
By way of update, I'm nearing the end of the comments, actually it's skewing much more gender critical, probably 60/40 in favour of GC.
Most of the criticisms of the article are the usual be-kinders. But one great comment said this:
Many commenters here are very muddled in their thoughts about those born with disorders of sexual development (who used to be called "intersex"). Why on earth would it be more important for doctors to know what sex they were assigned at birth (perhaps mistakenly) than their actual sex, which was determined later via DNA and other tests? Why would it be more important to know what sex they were assigned than to know that they have a disorder of sexual development? Indeed, why would the immediate, unreflective judgement of the pediatrician at the birth, perhaps mistaken, be medically important at all?
Those with disorders of sexual development are not served by calling it "sex assigned at birth" at all. It requires them to record an irrelevant mistake made at their birth. They are better off being asked what their sex is (which may have been determined later) and given a space on their medical forms to give details of their disorder.
But those who want to change our language usage here are not seeking precision. They want to use language to engineer social change. Of course language should be inclusive and precise--and we need words to refer to developing social categories. Let's make new words. The problem is with those who want to change the words for sex categories and not allow us to develop new ones, making certain things unsayable. We need a clear words for biological women and men. Women and men will do.
Ingenieur · 03/04/2024 22:16
@Helleofabore
This one has 105 likes:
Left-of-center centrist here, as I imagine the vast majority of commenters are. I have trans friends. I have friends with trans kids. I am supportive of trans rights. But the tacit demand that we as a society - and women in particular - hedge our sex with “assigned at birth” or the downright offensive “pregnant people” is causing a backlash from natural allies that is actively undercutting shared goals of acceptance of trans people. Please, in the name of making actual progress rather than creating litmus tests (and therefore giving right-wing nut jobs fissures to exploit), stop it. I am a woman. Most of us would appreciate it if a tiny minority of self-appointed morality police would stop trying to infringe upon, confuse, or otherwise qualify that fact.
DelurkingLawyer · 03/04/2024 21:21
Two words: reverse ferret.
https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1775588011767419092
Ingenieur · 04/04/2024 07:13
It looks like Meghan Murphy shares your opinion that a reverse-ferret may be incoming.
https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1775588011767419092
I'm not celebrating historical and consistent cowardice and a complete lack of journalistic integrity as a win because the media is shrewd enough to discern the tides are turning.
DelurkingLawyer · 03/04/2024 21:21
Two words: reverse ferret.
https://twitter.com/NoXY_USA/status/1775652423261946219
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
duc748 · 03/04/2024 21:56
This won't be happening at the Guardian on Kath Viner's watch!
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.