1) It has to be stated as scientific law that every single human being who has ever lived either had Y chromosomes in every single cell of his body, or had no Y chromosomes in any cell of her body. Nothing in between has ever happened.
2) I recall the observation of a Chinese teacher of qigong (chi kung) with whom I studied over 20 years ago: "A plug may mate with a power outlet. A plug may not mate with a plug, nor an outlet with an outlet."
3) There is a big difference between equal rights and equal protection under law. The latter understands that different types of people may have different interests.
4) In my sixties, I am just gradually starting to understand how very different the feminine mind is from my masculine mind, and why the world works better with this complementarity of perspectives. I call the former graceful support, and the latter controlled power.
actually, a small number humans are born with intersex conditions related to sex chromosome anomalies. The exceptions to the rule you stated are rare, but they exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
The linked article is 100% consistent with my comment. Notice what I did not say: that everyone is either XX or XY. That is false, but I didn't say that. I said that everyone either has Y chromosomes in every cell, or in no cell. That is a fact, which your linked article does not dispute. Therefore there are no exceptions to the rule I stated.
The mind is the mind, just as infancy is infancy. These are things all humans have in common. But they are COLORED, as by a photographic filter, by the experience of life in an in-some-regards different body (it hurts and dies regardless) and the experience of life in the consequent history and social structure (some of it dictated by biology, some more arbitrary).
One species, two sexes, eight billion individuals. Variation within constraint, as in the sonnet.
Differently put: the mind is a place towards which men and women can converge from their differently embodied experience. Your notions of the "feminine" and "masculine" mind tend toward the stereotypical and one-size-fits-all.
'I often read - on Substack and elsewhere - about the ‘global fertility crisis’. The causes are clearly complex and multi-dimensional but could it be that Androgyny Syndrome is one of them?;
Yes spot on
It's not spoken of enough but I'm sure it's more than a little to blame.
"...I mean in the sense of the sheer imaginative leap it would take to know what it feels like to be the opposite sex."
Diverging, it is this fact--and I mean that it's hard to argue against your observation--that is at the core of the illogic of the trans movement. Let me explain briefly.
A young girl, on entering puberty feels confused and disoriented. I think that this is a universal experience as an individual matures from a childhood state of inchoate sexuality into a fully sexually active adult. The surrounding culture can greatly ease this and most traditional cultures do this by coming of age rituals. It explains to the transitioning child that they're not alone, that this happens to everyone, and there is a place--a role--for you that's esteemed and revered.
But post-modern western cultures do not do this: they manage to make males feel guilty of their increasingly natural aggressiveness, and make females feel resentful of not being completely and without any limitation at all, empowered.
So back to our hypothetical young girl transitioning to adulthood, now, today...
She's confused, has no real support or guidance for her normal transition, but has been given to believe, by trusted adults and social media, that she may have actually been "mis-assigned" at birth as a female. That's she's really a male, and so she wants to become a man.
But how in the word can she be sure what being a man actually is? Almost certainly she has no idea, at all, of what the male role is, nor what it feels like, having all that surging testosterone. But she's *sure*, and so transitions--but what she transitions to is most certainly not a male; at best it's a pale caricature.
This might also explain why, when the idea of trans first became de rigeur, females mostly transitioned directly to male. But over time they themselves could see that this only made them a laughing stock, so now the more popular transition is to "non-binary".
"I don't like being a woman (I think), and I can't be a 'man', so..."
Really, in a nutshell, I'd suppose that 99% of all transitioning females are those who are simply unhappy because they are unfulfilled, and think that they can cure this by being something other than a woman.
Let me offer some biblical guidance, or what I characterize as God’s Will. It has to do with how eunuch’s are treated in the OT (Original Covenant) vs. the NT (New Covenant).
Deuteronomy 23:1 (OT) instructs that anyone emasculated is not allowed to enter the Lord’s assembly.
However, Acts 8:26-38 (NT) shows us Philip, inspired by God, literally ‘runs’ to the Ethiopian eunuch because Philip hears him reciting aloud Isaiah 53:7:8. Which leads to this eunuch being baptized (into the New Covenant). This eunuch was both a powerful official of the Queen of Ethiopia, but also a complete outcast, physically and spiritually.
And Philip RAN to him. He didn’t saunter up slowly. No, he ran.
My point is that the trans and ‘androgynous’ or ‘eunuchs’ among us may eventually be seeking Truth (and Christ). And we should keep our ears open to those voices, and run to them when that time comes.
The eunuch invited Philip to instruct him, because the eunuch did not understand what he was reading, and was humble enough to admit so. Then Philip baptized the eunuch into the Body of Christ, after the eunuch asked “What can stand in the way of my being baptized”. This was an absolute Godsend to the eunuch, who was previously in Jerusalem and likely studying OT texts, which barred him from participating in the Lord’s assembly. But now he had a way in. Read it here:
Eunuchs are males who have had their testicles removed. Trans is a choice and includes both males and females. The males rarely have their testicles removed.
My point is how we non-eunuchs and non-trans treat the eunuch or the trans, George, when it comes to the Kingdom of God. We all make mistakes, and the trans choice may be one of the gravest. But all who genuinely seek Him will be welcomed and let not our judgment stand in the way.
I don't see how that would apply to non-believers. On a personal basis, I treat people how they treat me, or, if I'm uncomfortable around them, for whatever reason, leave. My gay and lesbian friends & relatives have never pushed their lifestyle or beliefs on me, and the "Kingdom of God" has never entered into it.
"A woman's highest calling is to lead a man to his soul so as to unite him with Source. A man's greatest calling is to protect woman so that she is free to walk the earth unharmed"
We (men and women) have lost sight of our highest calling and perhaps this, in some part, has led to the trivialization of the sacred marriage, the mystical union of opposites. The symbolic "coniunctio" or union of Masculine and Feminine, Sol (Sun) and Luna (Moon) and King and Queen.
It seems that a common thread in modern "philosophy" is that there is no objective reality. It strikes me that, like unmusical "music," unartistic "art," illiterate "literature," et cetera ad nauseum, that which is called "philosophy" has long passed the jump-the-shark stage and become the fertilizer (to be polite) spreader that you so picturesquely describe. That such can obtain any traction whatsoever anywhere proves that PT Barnum was an optimist.
Having spent my youth in the rock scene, I was amongst liberals before neoliberalism damaged the meaning. We never had to think hard about definitions because we believed in freedom and individuality more than conformity. However, we were rebels without becoming today's salivating societal monsters for 'morality'.
I'm for feminism, but not how its been redefined (and when women tell other women how to behave).
I'm for outsiders, but not when they become a mob deciding how the majority must behave.
I'm for gay rights, but not for giant dildoes in public street parades.
On womanhood, I've done my best to have long conversations and watch a lot of movies, but will never comprehend childbirth, and thus see women as having a tougher hand than me.
Last week I saw two relevant documentaries that affected me:
The first was 'The Disappearance of Shere Hite'. She believed in women's rights, and her right to be sexy. She was a lady in the nude, and a tragic figure beneath public pressure - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24078380/
The second is 'Witches', a low budget but increasingly profound metaphor for post-partum depression, a topic needing demystification, as told by an indie rock singer who suffered greatly - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141590/
I broadly agree with most of your observations but see them as on a different track from the thrust of my essay.....late-stage feminism's perverse (and joyless) mission to 'de-sex' society. (My original title for it was going to be 'Dampen Down la Différence'.)
You article is, indeed, more intellectual than my thoughts its sparked though I add that:
'Shere Hite' increased women's rights through sexuality, and then they partly and ironicly dethroned her for her embrace of sexiness; 'Witches' may encourage women to not have babies (though empathy and education was its intent); and you may seen that video on my sidestack, the OnlyFans woman who embraced being gangbanged (and became rich), and then people, quoted in 'liberal' mainstream media, stating she's a victim.
The psychotic fantasy that a human might be allotted the incorrect genitals at birth has led to a decadent and obscene society. Happily, people seem to be waking up to the fact (that was well-known before the emergence of the alphabet people) that we are born as male or female and we will die the same way. The nightmare of DEI and acceptance of trans freaks is nearly over.
This is true.... but it was not my intention for this essay to be focused on the transgender fad - however nightmarish that has indeed been. I was trying to get at a broader but less obvious malaise.
While I am hopeful that the Trump administration will bring saner times, the USA is suffering from the same hubris, pride, and perversion of every empire that has failed in the past. People become comfortable. They become passive. They become effeminate. Barbarians destroy them and the cycle goes on and on.
Doubting the veracity of your claim, I did an Internet search and the NIH and the radicalized SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN seem to confirm that others share your insane opinion.
It's neither or insane nor my opinion. I was just referencing the article. Take your finger off the trigger and remove the bullets from you gun before you hurt yourself.
"Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, totaling 46 chromosomes in each cell. These include 22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes (XX for females and XY for males)."
Episode 1: The First War Begins. Scene 1: Cyberspace – probably around 2013
Trans activists: So hey, when we said we’d like you to treat us like women that wasn’t right, because actually, we ARE women and we demand that you treat us exactly like women because we are women and that you to stop violently excluding us from all your women things.
Women: Um, we thought you were male people who had to transition to help with your dysphoria?
Trans activists: No, that is out-dated and pathologizing. Women are women because they have a gender identity which makes them women.
Women: Um, we thought we were woman because we’re female?
Trans activists: No, you are women because you have magic womanish essence that makes you women. We have the same magic womanish essence as you, it’s just that ours got stuck in the wrong body.
Axtually, the whole thing is sadly hilarious and makes me glad that I am a cat.
Would it be fair to say that the very delusional feminist (and other) worldview is built on the poisoned legacy of the baby boomers and their notion of self-importance? Not so long ago we had selfless humans...
Meanwhile the dreadfully sane men associated with the outfit described in the two books listed below pretend that they know what is best for everyone in the important emotional-sexual matters of our existence-being.
Did you know that clothing is a form of body armoring. Armoring against feeling-sensitivity which is the core faculty of human beings.
1. Stench by David Brock
2. Opus by Gareth Gore.
It is interesting to note that Russell Vought has been appointed to a very powerful position in the Orange Oaf's administration. Vought, along with other principal movers and shakers of the 2025 Project are closely associated with Opus Dei
It would be interesting to read commentary from the ruling classes of the early previous century as male peasants pursued the right to own property, vote and choose a vocation other than tenant farmer. "Females will always play the central part in childbirth and child-rearing (and will always be at a disadvantage in respect of sexual violence and compulsion). Males will always do more of what one might broadly call the physical heavy lifting." But everything falls on a bell curve and not everyone fits neatly, and I've never understood the need of some to force a square peg into a round hole to make it neat. While I believe more males are so inclined, some women are very disposed to math, mechanics, physical activity, etc. You mention Phyllis Schlafly and I consider her to be a very aggressive and masculine female regardless of her "feminine" trappings, but her aggression is directed at other females and leads her to monitor and patrol female behavior. Yet she was able to go to law school due to a pathway set by early feminists. Misogynists would say she prevented a "better" male from attending law school.
Comments
1) It has to be stated as scientific law that every single human being who has ever lived either had Y chromosomes in every single cell of his body, or had no Y chromosomes in any cell of her body. Nothing in between has ever happened.
2) I recall the observation of a Chinese teacher of qigong (chi kung) with whom I studied over 20 years ago: "A plug may mate with a power outlet. A plug may not mate with a plug, nor an outlet with an outlet."
3) There is a big difference between equal rights and equal protection under law. The latter understands that different types of people may have different interests.
4) In my sixties, I am just gradually starting to understand how very different the feminine mind is from my masculine mind, and why the world works better with this complementarity of perspectives. I call the former graceful support, and the latter controlled power.
actually, a small number humans are born with intersex conditions related to sex chromosome anomalies. The exceptions to the rule you stated are rare, but they exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
The linked article is 100% consistent with my comment. Notice what I did not say: that everyone is either XX or XY. That is false, but I didn't say that. I said that everyone either has Y chromosomes in every cell, or in no cell. That is a fact, which your linked article does not dispute. Therefore there are no exceptions to the rule I stated.
no, there are conditions where the Y chromosome is not found in every cell, or is partially lost over time. https://www.sciencealert.com/losing-your-y-chromosome-could-have-drastic-health-consequences
It's a technical fine point of minimal relevance to the position being advanced. But the exceptions to the rule do exist.
To #4 (only) I would say "Bah humbug."
The mind is the mind, just as infancy is infancy. These are things all humans have in common. But they are COLORED, as by a photographic filter, by the experience of life in an in-some-regards different body (it hurts and dies regardless) and the experience of life in the consequent history and social structure (some of it dictated by biology, some more arbitrary).
One species, two sexes, eight billion individuals. Variation within constraint, as in the sonnet.
Differently put: the mind is a place towards which men and women can converge from their differently embodied experience. Your notions of the "feminine" and "masculine" mind tend toward the stereotypical and one-size-fits-all.
Thank you Annie for your kind endorsement of my work.
I report reality.
'I often read - on Substack and elsewhere - about the ‘global fertility crisis’. The causes are clearly complex and multi-dimensional but could it be that Androgyny Syndrome is one of them?;
Yes spot on
It's not spoken of enough but I'm sure it's more than a little to blame.
"...I mean in the sense of the sheer imaginative leap it would take to know what it feels like to be the opposite sex."
Diverging, it is this fact--and I mean that it's hard to argue against your observation--that is at the core of the illogic of the trans movement. Let me explain briefly.
A young girl, on entering puberty feels confused and disoriented. I think that this is a universal experience as an individual matures from a childhood state of inchoate sexuality into a fully sexually active adult. The surrounding culture can greatly ease this and most traditional cultures do this by coming of age rituals. It explains to the transitioning child that they're not alone, that this happens to everyone, and there is a place--a role--for you that's esteemed and revered.
But post-modern western cultures do not do this: they manage to make males feel guilty of their increasingly natural aggressiveness, and make females feel resentful of not being completely and without any limitation at all, empowered.
So back to our hypothetical young girl transitioning to adulthood, now, today...
She's confused, has no real support or guidance for her normal transition, but has been given to believe, by trusted adults and social media, that she may have actually been "mis-assigned" at birth as a female. That's she's really a male, and so she wants to become a man.
But how in the word can she be sure what being a man actually is? Almost certainly she has no idea, at all, of what the male role is, nor what it feels like, having all that surging testosterone. But she's *sure*, and so transitions--but what she transitions to is most certainly not a male; at best it's a pale caricature.
This might also explain why, when the idea of trans first became de rigeur, females mostly transitioned directly to male. But over time they themselves could see that this only made them a laughing stock, so now the more popular transition is to "non-binary".
"I don't like being a woman (I think), and I can't be a 'man', so..."
Really, in a nutshell, I'd suppose that 99% of all transitioning females are those who are simply unhappy because they are unfulfilled, and think that they can cure this by being something other than a woman.
It's a sort of elaborate cos-play, really.
Let me offer some biblical guidance, or what I characterize as God’s Will. It has to do with how eunuch’s are treated in the OT (Original Covenant) vs. the NT (New Covenant).
Deuteronomy 23:1 (OT) instructs that anyone emasculated is not allowed to enter the Lord’s assembly.
However, Acts 8:26-38 (NT) shows us Philip, inspired by God, literally ‘runs’ to the Ethiopian eunuch because Philip hears him reciting aloud Isaiah 53:7:8. Which leads to this eunuch being baptized (into the New Covenant). This eunuch was both a powerful official of the Queen of Ethiopia, but also a complete outcast, physically and spiritually.
And Philip RAN to him. He didn’t saunter up slowly. No, he ran.
My point is that the trans and ‘androgynous’ or ‘eunuchs’ among us may eventually be seeking Truth (and Christ). And we should keep our ears open to those voices, and run to them when that time comes.
When Philip got there, what did he do?
The eunuch invited Philip to instruct him, because the eunuch did not understand what he was reading, and was humble enough to admit so. Then Philip baptized the eunuch into the Body of Christ, after the eunuch asked “What can stand in the way of my being baptized”. This was an absolute Godsend to the eunuch, who was previously in Jerusalem and likely studying OT texts, which barred him from participating in the Lord’s assembly. But now he had a way in. Read it here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208%3A30-39&version=NIV
With the trans (eunuch’s) among us, let not our judgement prevent these souls from joining the Lord’s assembly, should they eventually seek it.
Eunuchs are males who have had their testicles removed. Trans is a choice and includes both males and females. The males rarely have their testicles removed.
My point is how we non-eunuchs and non-trans treat the eunuch or the trans, George, when it comes to the Kingdom of God. We all make mistakes, and the trans choice may be one of the gravest. But all who genuinely seek Him will be welcomed and let not our judgment stand in the way.
I don't see how that would apply to non-believers. On a personal basis, I treat people how they treat me, or, if I'm uncomfortable around them, for whatever reason, leave. My gay and lesbian friends & relatives have never pushed their lifestyle or beliefs on me, and the "Kingdom of God" has never entered into it.
Brilliant essay.
Thank you
A pleasure. Please keep them coming!
Proverb
"A woman's highest calling is to lead a man to his soul so as to unite him with Source. A man's greatest calling is to protect woman so that she is free to walk the earth unharmed"
We (men and women) have lost sight of our highest calling and perhaps this, in some part, has led to the trivialization of the sacred marriage, the mystical union of opposites. The symbolic "coniunctio" or union of Masculine and Feminine, Sol (Sun) and Luna (Moon) and King and Queen.
It seems that a common thread in modern "philosophy" is that there is no objective reality. It strikes me that, like unmusical "music," unartistic "art," illiterate "literature," et cetera ad nauseum, that which is called "philosophy" has long passed the jump-the-shark stage and become the fertilizer (to be polite) spreader that you so picturesquely describe. That such can obtain any traction whatsoever anywhere proves that PT Barnum was an optimist.
Another brilliant and superbly written essay. Thank you for introducing me to Kathleen Stock's substack.
Thank you Mary
Having spent my youth in the rock scene, I was amongst liberals before neoliberalism damaged the meaning. We never had to think hard about definitions because we believed in freedom and individuality more than conformity. However, we were rebels without becoming today's salivating societal monsters for 'morality'.
I'm for feminism, but not how its been redefined (and when women tell other women how to behave).
I'm for outsiders, but not when they become a mob deciding how the majority must behave.
I'm for gay rights, but not for giant dildoes in public street parades.
On womanhood, I've done my best to have long conversations and watch a lot of movies, but will never comprehend childbirth, and thus see women as having a tougher hand than me.
Last week I saw two relevant documentaries that affected me:
The first was 'The Disappearance of Shere Hite'. She believed in women's rights, and her right to be sexy. She was a lady in the nude, and a tragic figure beneath public pressure - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24078380/
The second is 'Witches', a low budget but increasingly profound metaphor for post-partum depression, a topic needing demystification, as told by an indie rock singer who suffered greatly - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32141590/
Thanks for these Mike....I'll take a look.
I broadly agree with most of your observations but see them as on a different track from the thrust of my essay.....late-stage feminism's perverse (and joyless) mission to 'de-sex' society. (My original title for it was going to be 'Dampen Down la Différence'.)
You article is, indeed, more intellectual than my thoughts its sparked though I add that:
'Shere Hite' increased women's rights through sexuality, and then they partly and ironicly dethroned her for her embrace of sexiness; 'Witches' may encourage women to not have babies (though empathy and education was its intent); and you may seen that video on my sidestack, the OnlyFans woman who embraced being gangbanged (and became rich), and then people, quoted in 'liberal' mainstream media, stating she's a victim.
How interesting… I also tied the conception of ‘the good life’ to a modern brand of feminism:
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-insidious-deception-of-the-good
The psychotic fantasy that a human might be allotted the incorrect genitals at birth has led to a decadent and obscene society. Happily, people seem to be waking up to the fact (that was well-known before the emergence of the alphabet people) that we are born as male or female and we will die the same way. The nightmare of DEI and acceptance of trans freaks is nearly over.
This is true.... but it was not my intention for this essay to be focused on the transgender fad - however nightmarish that has indeed been. I was trying to get at a broader but less obvious malaise.
While I am hopeful that the Trump administration will bring saner times, the USA is suffering from the same hubris, pride, and perversion of every empire that has failed in the past. People become comfortable. They become passive. They become effeminate. Barbarians destroy them and the cycle goes on and on.
According to chromosome studies there are 5 or 6, I don't remember the exact number, of variations in sexuality.
Doubting the veracity of your claim, I did an Internet search and the NIH and the radicalized SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN seem to confirm that others share your insane opinion.
It's neither or insane nor my opinion. I was just referencing the article. Take your finger off the trigger and remove the bullets from you gun before you hurt yourself.
Or either of you could share your facts.
"Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, totaling 46 chromosomes in each cell. These include 22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes (XX for females and XY for males)."
Oh, very well, then....
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/
Episode 1: The First War Begins. Scene 1: Cyberspace – probably around 2013
Trans activists: So hey, when we said we’d like you to treat us like women that wasn’t right, because actually, we ARE women and we demand that you treat us exactly like women because we are women and that you to stop violently excluding us from all your women things.
Women: Um, we thought you were male people who had to transition to help with your dysphoria?
Trans activists: No, that is out-dated and pathologizing. Women are women because they have a gender identity which makes them women.
Women: Um, we thought we were woman because we’re female?
Trans activists: No, you are women because you have magic womanish essence that makes you women. We have the same magic womanish essence as you, it’s just that ours got stuck in the wrong body.
Axtually, the whole thing is sadly hilarious and makes me glad that I am a cat.
Would it be fair to say that the very delusional feminist (and other) worldview is built on the poisoned legacy of the baby boomers and their notion of self-importance? Not so long ago we had selfless humans...
same take
Meanwhile the dreadfully sane men associated with the outfit described in the two books listed below pretend that they know what is best for everyone in the important emotional-sexual matters of our existence-being.
Did you know that clothing is a form of body armoring. Armoring against feeling-sensitivity which is the core faculty of human beings.
1. Stench by David Brock
2. Opus by Gareth Gore.
It is interesting to note that Russell Vought has been appointed to a very powerful position in the Orange Oaf's administration. Vought, along with other principal movers and shakers of the 2025 Project are closely associated with Opus Dei
It would be interesting to read commentary from the ruling classes of the early previous century as male peasants pursued the right to own property, vote and choose a vocation other than tenant farmer. "Females will always play the central part in childbirth and child-rearing (and will always be at a disadvantage in respect of sexual violence and compulsion). Males will always do more of what one might broadly call the physical heavy lifting." But everything falls on a bell curve and not everyone fits neatly, and I've never understood the need of some to force a square peg into a round hole to make it neat. While I believe more males are so inclined, some women are very disposed to math, mechanics, physical activity, etc. You mention Phyllis Schlafly and I consider her to be a very aggressive and masculine female regardless of her "feminine" trappings, but her aggression is directed at other females and leads her to monitor and patrol female behavior. Yet she was able to go to law school due to a pathway set by early feminists. Misogynists would say she prevented a "better" male from attending law school.
"Everything falls on a bell curve" is basically true....I did try to make that clear in the part of my essay that you quoted.