[Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3

[C G Estabrook]

Eminent sense.


> On Mar 28, 2019, at 11:28 AM, David Green <davidgreen50 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Frankly, it mystifies me as to how trans-gender advocates claim that sex and/or gender are not binary (on the one hand), and then proceed to continue to invoke the binaries of man/woman, male/female, masculine/feminine in legal, social, political, and medical claims that simply accept and re-assert/re-define those binaries. Why bother to go to the trouble of becoming a "woman" or "man" when, as a binary, these categories are claimed not to exist except as identities to be freely applied to oneself, to be changed, to be rejected, or to be reverted to if the choice doesn't happen to be satisfactory in one way or another. It seems to me that interrogating masculine/feminine gender characteristics within the context of patriarchy and sexism could be done much more effectively by acknowledging their biological foundations but rejecting biological determinism in favor of cultural evolution. It seems that trans advocates undermine this project when they argue that the solution for those who feel like the other sex to simply to become the other sex in what turns out to be rather gender stereotypical behavioral ways ("effeminate", "tough"), not to mention biological (hormonal, surgical) ways.