Thursday, October 21, 2021
HomePoliticsIf You Respect the Biology, You are Now Guilty of Being ‘Transphobic’

If You Respect the Biology, You are Now Guilty of Being ‘Transphobic’

With biological males attempting to claim to be females, particularly in the realm of athletics, women are facing a crisis in this country. The reality is that women’s rights to be women are in jeopardy.

Traditional gender identities of simply being male or female are under attack. You can no longer simply be straight male, you must be a cis-male, or if you have the proclivity, a bi-male. And somehow that, in the Fascist, woke minds of the Left, those are two different genders. That’s just the start.

Some say they have counted 63 separate genders. They have cast aside biology and are trying to claiming gender is fluid and certainly not binary ― which is to say, male or female. The description of these so-called genders is truly mind-boggling and far beyond most people’s ability to understand ― and that includes the people who claim to know the whole realm of them.

There is even discussion of whether the “right” to think of genders as only being male and female is a concept protected under U.S. law. The fact there has to be a debate about that tells us a lot about how far down the slippery slope society has gone.

Case in point: In July, Harvard professor of evolutionary biology Carol Hooven was slammed by her department’s “diversity head” for rejecting the term “pregnant people”’ and insisting on referring to people as male or female instead. Hooven, who has been at the university for 20 years and received multiple teaching awards, spoke on Fox & Friends July of feeling “frustrated” at the atmosphere in academia.

She told Fox News on Wednesday that she was dismayed at the insistence on politically correct terminology, which she felt was misguided. University professors were discouraged from using the words male and female, and referring to pregnant women, she said. The terms are deemed offensive to the transgender and LGBTQ community.

“I’ve been feeling pretty frustrated over the last five years or so. It’s been gradual,” she said. “This kind of ideology has been infiltrating science. It’s infiltrating my classroom, to some extent.”

Hooven said that her lessons were focused on hormones and behavior, sex, and sex differences. On July 13 she published a widely acclaimed book, “T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone That Dominates and Divides Us.”

She continued: “Part of that science is teaching the facts. And the facts are that there are in fact two sexes ― there are male and female ― and those sexes are designated by the kind of gametes we produce. Do we make eggs, big sex cells, or little sex cells, sperm. And that’s how we know whether someone is male or female.”

Yet university-level ideology seems to be that biology really isn’t as important as how somebody feels about themselves, or feels their sex to be.

Earlier this week reporter Katie Herzog, writing for Bari Weiss’ Substack newsletter, spoke with one student at a med school in the University of California system who says instructors are too scared to acknowledge the existence of two different sexes because it can be considered transphobic.

The student, identified only as Lauren, told Herzog: “I think there’s a small percentage of instructors who are true believers [in woke ideology], but most of them are probably just scared of their students.”

Lauren says that there are real-world implications for trying to erase the differences between biological sex, as medical conditions often affect biological gender.

“You know, we can treat people with respect and respect their gender identities and use their preferred pronouns,” she said on Wednesday. “So understanding the facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect.”

Hooven said that political correctness was “incredibly confusing for science educators and for students trying to learn about the world and learn the tools of science and critical thinking.”

She said it was wrong for professors and the media to back away from using certain terms that they are afraid some people will find offensive.

“And that fear is based in reality,” she said. ”People do find these terms offensive. They do complain on social media. They do shame people and even threaten to get people fired. So it’s no wonder that a lot of people are caving and yielding to the social pressure. But we are doing students and the public a great disservice, and dividing the populace.”

Hooven’s remarks were strongly criticized by Laura Simone Lewis, the “diversity police” for Hooven’s department. She tweeted: “As the Director of the Diversity and Inclusion Task Force for my dept @HarvardHEB, I am appalled and frustrated by the transphobic and harmful remarks made by a member of my dept in this interview with Fox and Friends.”

She went on through three more tweets ― with the 288-character limit, amounting to four or five paragraphs. But Lewis concluded that Hooven’s remarks were “dangerous and inappropriate.”

This is what our college and university professors now face. If their students don’t vilify them, their own diversity Nazi will. When the exact science of biology is rejected by the Fascist “woke” as being transphobic, it is more than a step too far. It is, unfortunately, spilling out of the universities and into everyday life.

Last year, a study exploring “Transgender exclusion from the world of dating” was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Of nearly 1,000 participants, the overwhelming majority, 87.5 percent, irrespective of their sexual preference, said they would not consider dating a trans person, “with cisgender heterosexual men and women being most likely to exclude trans persons from their potential dating pool.”

Of course, there is, to anyone not yet blinded by ideology, a very obvious explanation for this. One of endlessly fascinating sociological interest. However, the study’s authors aren’t interested in exploring this. They are interested, instead, in speculating about social ills such as “transprejudice,” “transmisogyny,” “masculine privileging,” “transgender exclusion,” and, one presumes, transphobia.

Once one stumbles past the clunky writing and ideological jargon, what’s actually being noted here is the not-so-groundbreaking revelation that lesbians aren’t attracted to male bodies. In other words, that sexuality is tied up with the factual biology of sex.

Gee, who knew?

While the study did not ask participants about their reasons for including or excluding trans persons, the authors speculated that exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge about what it means to be a transgender man or woman, and therefore, what it would mean to date a trans person.

If the authors had bothered asking participants, however, they might have been surprised to learn that this is not generally the case. The authors might have discovered that, in fact, asking a lesbian “and why won’t you date a person with a penis?” is like asking a vegetarian “and why won’t you eat a formerly sentient creature?” Instead, the authors come back with a prescription for what they undoubtedly had assumed to be the root cause of trans dating woes before they ever conducted their study.

Their absurd conclusion: “Examining and following the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people. In other words, it is one thing to make space for trans people within our workplaces, schools, washrooms, and public spaces, but it is another to see them included within our families and most intimate of spaces, our romantic relationships. We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools; at the very least, on a hypothetical basis.”

So the solution to the problem is that we, “as a society,” spontaneously start fancying the sex that we don’t actually fancy. So, if you’re lesbian, that means men who identify as women. And if you’re a heterosexual woman, that means women who identify as men.

In other words, the solution to one minority group’s personal problems is to politicize the bedroom at the macro level, to emotionally blackmail the entire culture, and to tell men and women, far and wide, whom they should and shouldn’t sleep with.

Okay, then. And what about during those intimate, private moments with our new romantic partners (whom we’re not actually attracted to)? Are we permitted, then, to broach the subject of biological sex? Absolutely not. On its website, Planned Parenthood explains that a crucial way to stamp out transphobia is to never “ask personal questions about a transgender person’s genitalia, surgery, or sex life.”

Right. What could possibly go wrong?

Mike Nichols is a conservative, a patriot, U.S. Army veteran, licensed professional counselor, political enthusiast, sports fan and writer living with his beautiful wife Liz in the Heartland. He has a regular blog at America’s Conservative Voice on Substack and a Facebook presence at Americas Conservative Voice-Facebook.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every morning.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Comments

Newest Posts