The UCP Hates You

The Alberta “United Conservative Party” hates you - and it’s with a level of visceral loathing that is inexplicable.  Live in an urban centre?  Well, the cancellation of the Green Line is one of many examples of their loathing for anyone that isn’t “them”.  

Then the National Post published some of the policy proposals that the party is looking at for this fall’s convention.  To call it ‘hate-filled’ is perhaps the kindest thing I can say about it.  The levels of ignorance and hatred contained in the motions is stunning, but also telling. 

The Anti-Trans Movement Is A ReInstatement Of Patriarchy

Although the current backlash against transgender women (trans women) has its roots in a branch of feminism, it is no longer arguably a “feminist” discussion. In fact, there’s a considerable argument that it now exists as a patriarchal movement intended to re-establish the dominance of men in western society. 

First, consider the following shifts that have occurred.  In the early 2000s, most of the noise was coming from a handful of moderately well known feminist writers and their more vocal followers. It was mostly a fringe movement that hung out at the intersection of lesbian community politics and so-called radical feminism. If you weren’t in either space, you didn’t really hear about it … at all. My first encounters with it arose over the ruckus associated with the “Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival”, and one or two particularly toxic Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF) that were flailing about harassing trans people online (names are left out here because … well, they’re still toxic, and I don’t want to give them the attention).  

On the other side of the discussion, we find the usual assortment of “Social Conservatives (SoCon)”, which is a polite, but inaccurate bit of language for describing people who are ultimately Christian fundamentalists who want to impose their particular idea of Christianity on all of us. Around about 2010-2012, we start seeing the language of the TERFs, and the language of the SoCons suddenly starts aligning. To the point that they were using the same language and arguments, and one often couldn’t tell at first whether one was arguing with a Christian, or with a TERF.  

However, once the two groups started sharing language and arguments, they rapidly started sharing tactics and strategies, and they coalesced around ideas such as “immutability of sex”, “trans women have a natural advantage in sports”, and failing all of that, “trans women must be perverts and pedophiles”.  

The latter set of claims is of course very much a repetition of the kind of arguments that were made about (particularly) male homosexuals for decades. More or less, it is constructed from the patriarchal assumption that by definition men are a danger to women.  They have extended the definition of “man” here to include anyone who possesses, or ever possessed, a penis. The argument is then extended to the idea that anyone who fits into this categorization of “man” is also a danger to molest children. 

How is this a patriarchal claim? It is patriarchal on several levels. First, it assumes that men are so much more “powerful” than women that they cannot be trusted around women and children. In other words, it places men at the top of a social hierarchy rooted in physical strength. Second, it places undue focus on the penis, making it an object which is to be feared - and anybody who has ever had one is automatically a danger, but also in doing so implicitly relegates women to second tier status in the power hierarchy.  

There is a point to this. In many Christian cultural contexts, there is a specific hierarchy in the family unit, which places the man (husband) at the head of the household (after all, he’s the breadwinner, right?), and the woman (wife) in the position of being the person who supports the husband, and ensures that the home is orderly and well run. Children in this context often end up being treated as “little possessions to be controlled” instead of independent human beings developing into adults.

I won’t go into the kind of social pressures that women who are in these contexts are subjected to. Beyond saying that in many of the groups I am familiar with, women are expected to conform to “Stepford Wives” standards - as creepy as that sounds.

There’s a reason I brought up the idea of appearances here. Women in these contexts are held to very specific standards of appearance. This makes it possible for the next vector of attack against trans women to emerge. Caricatures of trans women emerge within these circles. Trans women are then assumed to be little more than “men wearing a dress”, and anyone who isn’t 5’2” and wearing a specific style of clothing is looked upon with suspicion. Of course, women come in all sorts of shapes and sizes - this isn’t news.  But it serves as a handy “weapon” to use against anyone who is “trans” - suddenly “body policing” begins. If you don’t appear sufficiently “feminine” for someone else, you can find your presence in a public washroom challenged. 

But, the real beauty of this for the patriarchy types is that it focuses women on “identifying the threat in their midst” (as if trans women are somehow “wolves in sheep’s clothing”), and of course anybody who is remotely non-feminine suddenly finds themselves subjected to ridiculous levels of scrutiny, and they are distracted from the structures that patriarchies create specifically to marginalize and control women. 

Trans women in particular are a problem for proponents of religious patriarchy for several reasons.  First, like homosexual men, they defy the very narrow idea of what it means to be male. Gay men violate the concept of sexual power by being attracted to … well … other men. Trans women in particular go a step further and really confuse the patriarchy by stepping into a social role that is deemed “weaker” by the patriarchy. This kind of flexibility both socially and sexually is intrinsically threatening to the sense of structure that is relied upon to ensure the power of males in the social world. 

Then we get to the concept of bodily autonomy. Transgender people in general represent a generalization of the bodily autonomy that underpins many aspects of feminist thinking. Feminism itself arose out of a need to move beyond the “biology as destiny” world of the past, and forces the recognition of women as whole and equal members of society who exist at the same level of autonomy and ability as men do. Transgender people go much further with respect to the concept of bodily autonomy, essentially arguing that their bodies are in no way “destiny”, and that they should be able to move through society as equals regardless of their bodily configuration. This creates additional “threats” to traditional patriarchy because suddenly clear cut delineation between people and social roles disappear, replaced by self determination and actualization. For someone seeking a clear, well ordered, social world, that represents a dire threat indeed. 

These two reasons are why we now see religious figures at the forefront of demonizing trans women (and yes, to a certain extent, trans men get a pass here because patriarchy also requires mystifying the feminine while exalting the “power” of the masculine.  

This is also why trans women in elite sports became a flash point after Lia Thomas won a few medals at a competition.  Up to that point, trans women had been competing openly since the mid-2000s. Of course, they weren’t winning medals.  The moment one trans woman did start winning, the patriarchy driven notion that women are intrinsically “weaker” than men was leveraged to claim that somehow there was an “unfair advantage” (the science around this topic remains full of more questions than answers, and I’m not going to tackle it here).  Why? Because patriarchy demands that women compete separately from men - not really because women and men are “dramatically different”, but because in the rare event that a man would lose to a woman, that would threaten the very structures patriarchy demands in order to function. 

It is ironic to me that among the loudest voices attacking trans women are alleged “feminists”, who are ultimately operating hand-in-glove with the same people who would happily shove society forcefully back to the structures that held sway before women dared assert their right and ability to vote.

So ... The Social Woes Of Today Are The Fault of Whom?!

The political right wing's inability to understand things beyond simplistic bromides has always surprised me.  I get that it makes for easy sound bite politicking, but seriously, the conclusions drawn are often laughable in their implausibility.

Then we come to today's entry in "what stupidity will they say today?":  The Rise of the Single, Woke (and Young) Female.

An Open Letter To Margaret Wente

Dear Ms. Wente,

I thought that as a journalist you were supposed to do some research before you go writing stories.  In the case of your August 2, 2014 column in The Globe and Mail, it is painfully obvious that you haven't even bothered to try.

As a child, Lindsay Leigh Bentley desperately wanted to be a boy. She refused to wear dresses and adored going hunting with her dad. She loved sticks, guns, motorcycles and monsters. She chopped the hair off her Barbies. Her parents had to cut her own hair short because she refused to let them brush it. Her best friends were boys. In childhood pictures, she looks fierce, and tough as nails. 

These days, her worried parents would probably hustle her off to the nearest gender-identity clinic.

Had you done even the slightest bit of actual research, you would have discovered that there is very little that is so simple about the treatment of Transgender youth.  The World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care (WPATH SOC) would have been a good place to start.  (Take note of this reference, we will be coming back to it)

...But it is also the story of advocacy run amok, in which a small but militant group of activists has managed to strong-arm well-meaning people into believing that gender is not innate but “assigned,” that those who are “trapped in the wrong body” would be happier with radical hormone treatments and mutilating surgery, and that children as young as one or two should be pushed along a path whose implications they are far too young to understand.

Wow ... how many twists and lies can you put into a single paragraph, Margaret?  Let's start enumerating them:

The Knuckle Dragging Judge

Normally, I find most judges are fairly well reasoned in their rulings, even if I disagree with them. Then there's Justice Dewar's comments in a recent sexual assault case where he blamed the victim:

Queen's Bench Justice Robert Dewar called Rhodes a "clumsy Don Juan" who may have misunderstood what the victim wanted when he forced intercourse along a darkened highway outside Thompson, Man., in 2006.

Rhodes and a friend met the 26-year-old woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside of a bar under what the judge called "inviting circumstances." Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.

I can't believe the judge was daft enough to make this ruling. Once again, we find ourselves being dragged back to the stone ages by people who seem to think that men can't possibly manage their sexual responses if the woman is "dressed provocatively" (whatever the hell that means, given the plethora of sexual turn-ons out there).

However, others have already pointed out the outrageous nature of the judge's comments, and the remarks (and presumably the ruling itself) are under review.

However, there's another dimension to this whole smelly mess that I'd like to bring to your attention.

Justice Dewar is one of Harper's patronage appointees: for donating to CPoC in 2008.

Hmmm...so, let's see if I've got this straight:

A judge who was appointed to the bench by Stephen Harper's government just made a ruling that revived the "blame the victim" defense for rapists (a defense which has been thrown out of court more times than I can count in the last thirty years).

I'd say this is pretty good evidence that the HarperCon$ would dearly love to drag Canada further back into the stone age. After their blatant attack on women and minority issues in 2006, one might just imagine that there's more going on than we are seeing (and the Bev Oda affair is just one more example of this government's inherent dishonesty with the public)

Generalize Much, Feminists?

This isn't really directed at all feminists, just the arrogant, obnoxious varieties like "Miss Andrea", keeper of the Feminazi blog. (I've written about her before here)

Her most recent anti-trans tirade is here.

It isn’t their existence which is in doubt, but strategy-wise, it’s beneficial for them to continually refocus attention away from their various inconsistencies and towards some sleight of hand poppycock while overly dramatizing their feelings. They embody, pardon moi’s crudeness, the worst stereotypes ever of hysterical effeminate dandies. They are literally acting out a caricature of something which exists only in their imaginations, because not even effeminate dandies (if any actually existed) are that fucking hysterical.

Generalize much, "Miss Andrea"? Or is it merely that your argument can't stand up to actual scrutiny without using such broad brush to describe others?

I'd love to know what these alleged "inconsistencies" you claim transfolk in general are responsible for. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd suspect that you were trying to put together a convenient straw-man to knock down.

More seriously, if you try to treat the broad spectrum of people that are transgender as if they represent some coherent unified whole, you are in for a world of difficulty. At best the broad term transgender can be considered descriptive, and does not describe a singular, coherent group that share the same goals. For example, attributing to transsexuals behaviours seen among drag queens is simply going to show that you have little or no idea of understanding of the people you are writing about.

They claim that any objections to transgenderism or any nagging requests that they clarify their own inconsistencies, are merely impertinent impositions on their valuable time and energy, and of course, an insult to their existence.

Ummm...not really. If you engage with people intelligently, you might actually get intelligent discourse. Unfortunately, far too many "radical feminists" start off with an argument position that attempts to erase the experiences that transsexuals very consistently express. (and, "Miss Andrea", you have a track record of attempting precisely that kind of erasure before - and I've shredded your argument in some detail)

Validating our humanity, and especially validating our neutrality – by that I mean constantly reaffirming that our status is non-whore and non-madonna — are two tasks which occupies the vast majority of a feminist’s time and energy. Validating our entitlement to civil rights, usually comes dead last.

Erm ... so? and this gives you some blanket right to trash on transpeople in general how? I hate to point this out, but the "victimhood" status that you like to whine and whinge about transpeople using is precisely what you are adopting here as a feminist ... and by some weird leap of logic, you seem to think that cross-gender identity is inherently misogynistic.

I'd like to think you are capable of actual informed discourse, but until you are prepared to actually deal with the groups that are loosely understood to be 'transgender' as individual populations, I doubt that any reasoned discourse is likely.

You Said It, Cardinal Ouelett, You Wear It

I see Cardinal Ouelett is trying to (sort of) backpedal on his recent statements about abortion in Canada.

On Wednesday, Ouellet told reporters he was "a bit surprised by the magnitude of the reaction" to his comments, which he said had been "twisted" and taken out of context.

"They took one small phrase and created a weapon … to discredit me," Ouellet said.

Ah ... the classic "I was taken out of context" defense. Coming from another one of Pope Benedict's cassock-wearing celibates, it's lacking credibility. Especially when he says this:

He called abortion a "moral disorder," but said the circumstances must be taken into account.

"I am not making a judgment on the woman ... because the woman has to take her decision in light of her personal circumstance," Ouellet said. "Only God knows all the elements of her final judgment of conscience.

Well ... he's got half of it right - the decision is the woman's. What he's got wrong is that he has any say in that decision.

In Belgium, with only rare exceptions, abortions are not performed later than 12 weeks into a pregnancy, Ouellet said.

As a result, he said, in 2007 there were 18,000 abortions in the country with a population of 10 million people, compared with more than 26,000 in Quebec, which has a population of eight million.

Of course, like most anti-abortionists, Ouellet is ignoring the fact that by far the majority of abortions in Canada (and Quebec in particular) are done in the first trimester.

More fundamentally, these clowns need to pay a little attention to the Morgentaler decision which found the last attempt at a law arbitrarily restricting abortion unconstitutional.

Since then, we've heard a lot of bleating about "fetal rights", which is nothing more than an attempt to invent a status for a being that is entirely dependent upon the woman until birth. Anyone with their brain switched on should be able to see just what a legal can of worms creating a legal status for a fetus would open. (Welcome back to the 'you're not a person' era, ladies - because suddenly your body is subject to the rights not just of your good judgment, but also of someone else's judgment on behalf of that fetus)

Ah - So Women's Health Only Matters When You're Pregnant

Birth control won't be in G8 plan to protect mothers, Tories say

In no uncertain terms, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon yesterday ruled out any kind of family-planning programs being included in Canada's "signature" initiative at June's G8 summit - a strategy to improve the health of mothers and young children in poor countries.

"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives," Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

So, in short, the HarperCon connection to the ultra-conservative "base" of religious fanatics has surfaced once again - this time with respect to women's health.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cannon, but you are doing nothing for women's health if you are taking out of their hands the ability to control their fertility. (and telling women to 'keep their legs crossed' doesn't work - especially in many of the third world countries where women are more chattel than equal members of society)

Women's health must include all dimensions - not just when they are pregnant, but also family planning, contraception and other forms of birth control. To do anything less is political dogma, not good government or policy.

Of course, this comes as little or no surprise to those who have been paying attention to the Harper government. There's been more 'dog whistles' put out in their policy in the last few months than I care to count. Whether we talk about Jason Kenney's lying deceit about his role in the content of this country's new citizenship book, the 2006 "cuts" that targetted women and minorities, or this issue, they are intended to signal to the squirming mass of extremism that had control over the Reform/Alliance party policy that they have not been forgotten.

The Fruits of Harper's SoCon Agenda

We could have written this report back in 2006 when the HarperCon$ went after cutting programs that benefit women and minorities.

Make no mistake about it - Harper will continue to dismantle everything that makes Canada a better place to live if he's given the opportunity. His government doesn't just misunderstand what equality and rights are about - they are blatantly hostile to the very notion.

Whether it is the blatant attacks on equality that his government has made, or the bungling of the cases of Canadians who find themselves mired in a foreign country's legal system - often until public outrage forces the government to take corrective steps, this is a government which ignores, and supresses facts which contradict its ideologically driven agenda. (and, as with other things, women are more often victims of domestic gun violence ... which was precisely why the gun registry was put in place originally)

H/T: Luna @ Feminist Christian Socialist

Sexism At Its Finest

Over at the Ottawa Citizen, we find David Warren spouting off about sex and contraception - and managing to make it all women's fault when they find themselves pregnant:

"A woman must have the right to decide whether she is going to carry a baby." Whom do these people think they are fooling?

A woman, who is not the victim of a rape, has always had that right; and even my Catholic Church recognizes a method of contraception that is quite infallible. Gentle reader may guess what that is. And while it is only a rule of thumb, "no sex without babies, and no babies without sex" does in fact provide adequate guidance for any conceivable life issue.

How delightfully medieval of the man. What really annoys me about this kind of simplistic logic on Mr. Warren's part is not just that he has essentially made the whole issue of contraception and family planning the woman's job. Clearly, in his world, men bear no responsibility for their actions.

If men were good, there would never be abortions. If men were good, women would never have cause to seek them. If men were good, women would be loved.

Therefore, regardless of the state of any law, the immediate answer is for men to be good, and to address their Valentine wishes accordingly.

Why yes, Mr. Warren - the perfect solution is for everybody to follow the same rules. How insightful of you. Of course, Mr. Warren is conveniently ignoring the biblical nonsense about 'wives submitting to their husbands', which all too often is interpreted quite specifically with sex in mind.

Then there are situations like this where women's bodies and integrity are clearly violated - again for purely religious reasons. There are also societies in the world where it is illegal for a woman to deny her husband sex. Think about that a little bit.

Pardon me for being thick about things, but I think it's appropriate to note that there's a certain hypocrisy in Mr. Warren's thinking. On one hand, it's all the fault of those awful women for spreading their legs for their partners, and on the other hand, those same women are obligated by "biblical law" to submit to their partners? Hmmm...sounds to me like the power is being placed firmly in men's hands, while the responsibility is handed elsewhere.

Sorry Mr. Warren, but where a woman's body is involved, it is the woman's perogative to decide what happens with it - up to and including terminating a pregnancy through abortion. This deserves to be true here in Canada as well as elsewhere in the world. Until men like Mr. Warren cease to wave their bibles in our faces, and start respecting women as equal members of society with all the autonomy that comes with it, there will be a fight. This is why Mr. Harper's 'maternal health' initiative is a bad joke on the world stage.

Lastly, Mr. Warren might want to consider sex from the perspective of how couples bond with each other. Although children can be an outcome of sex, it would be folly to assume that something as incredibly intimate as sex doesn't play a dramatic role in cementing the emotional bond between partners. As much as the Catholic Church likes to view sex as purely fulfilling a reproductive role, we know that it has other benefits as well. To restrict it solely to spawning more children is probably more damaging to a relationship, and yet that is exactly what he is proposing.

What's Wrong With Julie Bindel

Over at The Guardian, we have Beatrix Campbell speaking in defense of Julie Bindel.

She's busy arguing that Bindel should be heard - blah blah blah.

The problem with Bindel is that when it comes to transsexual identities, she speaks as if she has actual knowledge of transsexuals. Unfortunately, she doesn't - her writing is full of the same kind of stereotyping that women have fought against for years - only Bindel focuses the her noxious assumptions repeatedly on transsexuals.

If Bindel actually had some real understanding of transsexuals, and did more than simply spout off theories that claim that transsexuals aren't real, then she might be worth listening to. As it is, her theories are like listening to a phrenologist - neither have any basis in reality, and don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Privilege To Oppress

I've been engaged lately in a very interesting conversation about how social privilege can be used as a source of oppression lately. It has been primarily from a feminist perspective, but today's traipse through right wing blog No Apologies revealed a very interesting pattern of assumed religious privilege being used to justify oppression of both women and GLBT folk.

Consider the following:

Hateful attack against Truro’s Christian mayor
The Status of Women Must Be Abandoned
'I'm a pariah' says Muslim scholar who is gay
Calgary favours homosexuality over Christianity

All of these articles are arguing in one form or another that articles of specific religions are essentially a legitimate reason for limiting the lives of others.

Consider the following:

...They further expressed their shock and amazement at the City’s response, since the City authorized a flag raising ceremony on the masts of City Hall and a proclamation just three months prior for homosexuals. The church feels that the requests were the same and that the only difference can be found in the message. Street Church states that the City now officially endorses homosexuality and firmly opposes Christianity in the public square.

There's a couple of points of interest - first is the claim that because the City of Calgary chose to recognize 'Pride Month', that it should also recognize a religiously-centered celebration. This is a false equivalence, since different faiths have substantially overlapping Calendars (especially around the Winter Solstice).

The city's response (posted at Pawlowski's Streetchurch website reflects this:

The City of Calgary recognizes multiculturalism and our pluralistic society, and we celebrate our city’s diversity and the benefits this offers our community by enriching the lives of all Calgarians. The City recognizes several important cultural and religious events in the community including the Menorah Lighting, Eid celebration and the annual Nativity scene. However, while we allow the celebration of faith-based events at City Hall, we do not issue proclamations for religious or spiritual leaders nor do we raise a flag in honour of a specific religion.

This makes sense when you consider the fact that not only does Christianity hold major celebrations during December, so do other major faiths such as Judaism, and arguably most pagan faiths do as well. For the City of Calgary to specifically recognize one of these faiths over another is to send a negative message to the citizens of Calgary who do not profess that faith. Religion is deeply personal, and highly contentious at the best of times. For the City to remain more or less silent on the subject is quite appropriate.

Yet, at the same time, while these same people are crying out about how their particular faith is being "persecuted" (how a faith that is nominally practiced by the majority of our population can possibly argue that it is being 'persecuted' is beyond me, but they do), the same people have used the doctrines of their particular faiths to argue quite loudly that GLBT people should be held as less than equal participants in our societies.

Consider the following comment:

Good for Mayor Bill Mills to stand up to this pervertion.

It is very interesting from the perspective of considering the notion of socially organized oppression in the context from which feminism argues. The claim is, in essence, that it is a horrible thing for GLBT people to be treated as equal participants in society. Yet, the religious argument against homosexuality doesn't recognize that it is the flip side of the persecution claim that they make routinely.

Similarly, there is also an emerging argument from right wing political christianity that claims that feminism has "gone too far", resulting in commentary like this:

Something is wrong with that picture, now we have woman taking care of the men, broken homes, and nothing going right. Our society has been vilified. Even though men are physically stronger many times than woman we have woman taking mens jobs, but still not getting paid as much.

"Men's jobs"??? Really - I didn't know there was such a thing any more.

However, this is again a situation where a position is being staked out that is rooted fundamentally in a scriptural understanding of "the differences between men and women". In this situation, it is fairly clear that again, a scriptural understanding is being used to limit a person's ability to contribute to society fully.

Both are ultimately examples of asserted privilege on the part of the claimants - they believe fully that they are "in the right" of the matter, and do not appear to understand how they are in fact imposing their beliefs on others in a manner that limits both the value and the validity of individual, lived experiences.

Revisiting Anne Fausto-Sterling's 'Sexing The Body'

I read this book a couple of years ago, but recently some of her writing has come up in various discussions I've been having. I'll admit that when I reviewed my notes from a few years ago that I didn't entirely agree with her arguments when I read Sexing the Body at the time.

However, it was in reading this response to the book, I found myself re-examining my notes and re-evaluating things in the light of what I know and understand today.

At the time I read "Sexing the Body" a couple of years ago, I was well immersed in reading a bunch of somewhat unrelated work by Judith Butler, and my disagreements with Butler appear to have significantly coloured my understanding of Fausto-Sterling's work at the time.

However, looking at it today, I find myself thinking that there's a fundamental point that I agree with Fausto-Sterling on - namely that the current models for describing physical gender are far too limited for the realities that we are gradually, but persistently uncovering. Gender is about the only part of medicine which is absolute - we are categorized as "male" or "female" at birth and so it must remain for all time.

The clinician's response is to suggest that a model of gender that is a continuum removes any meaning from the term Intersex, rendering it unusable for diagnostic purposes. I agree that this will be a significant problem for clinicians - when an entire spectrum of variation arguably describes the notion of Intersex, the term Intersex ceases to be terribly meaningful.

But, this is hardly a new phenomenon in the world of diagnostics. The concept of gender identity has changed dramatically in the psychiatric literature since Harry Benjamin started researching transsexuality in the 1940s. Over 3 editions of the DSM, we have seen the concept evolve from describing fetishistic crossdressing, eventually to include transsexuals, and in the DSM IV, the GID diagnosis is surprisingly broad - providing diagnosis covering a wide range of cross-gender experiences.

However, Fausto-Sterling is not entirely arguing from a clinical, or biological standpoint. She is integrating in significant amounts of social and political discourse into her position. While the clinical categorization of someone's gender may become significantly complicated by a model which describes physical gender as a spectrum, we must also recognize the social and political aspects of gender, and that is where a spectrum is a much more important and powerful tool.

What a spectrum model does to clinicians is force the use of objectively correct language for each individual case. Someone who has Klinefelter's Syndrome, and someone who has Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia cannot simply be categorized as "Intersex". This means that a more precise level of diagnosis and tracking will have to be undertaken - not a bad thing in the least.

Socially, however, this presents a much stronger foundation upon which to rest the conversations about the social and political aspects of gender that are ongoing parts of our cultural evolution. First of all, it takes the notion of biological determinism out of the picture. It removes the weapons of exclusion from all of the interested parties in gender discussion. The radical feminist that argues that MtF transsexuals aren't really women because they cannot bear children (I'm vastly oversimplifying the argument here, but I do find it ironic that the RadFem argument against transwomen boils down to the same biological determinism that feminism has fought for decades) Fundamentally, biology is then recognized as sufficiently plastic to accommodate a wide range of gender experiences and behaviours - and none of those should be seen as erasing anyone else's experience.

By taking biology somewhat out of the discussion, we can then move into a world of discussion social gender in its own right without the noise in the background of the internecine warfare that goes on between the various factions. It has always been clear to me that Feminist theory is on very solid ground when it is working from the context of the social constructs that are a significant part of our gendered life experiences - it has typically fallen apart quite badly when it has attempted to describe the underpinnings of gender at the level of biology and identity.

The real issues with gender in our society today exist as social issues - whether it is roles, expectations or demands placed on members of either sex. Feminism as a movement was born out of the recognition that our society had developed along patriarchal lines for centuries, and how that evolution was marginalizing half the population.

The treatment of both Intersex and transgender people in our society has arisen in part on the heels of feminism, and in part out of a recognition that there are groups where the imposition of "normal" as it applies to most of the population doesn't work so well. Marginalization and discrimination are rampant, and ill-informed treatment at the hands of medical professionals is all too common for both of these groups.

Appropriate treatment remains a problem for both IS and Trans communities. A more precise sense of diagnosis and classification will in fact work to the advantage of both groups. A more broadly based model of gender should permit greater individual autonomy with respect to treatment decisions, since each case must be examined individually. Hopefully, this will also have the benefit of making it easier for parents to move beyond the often panic/worry related treatment decisions that are so often made before an IS child is ready to make their own decisions.

I've argued before that when we are talking about humanity, it is important to view our attributes along the lines of spectrums - primarily because absolutes inevitably seem to encounter problems with exceptions. Where I disagree with Fausto-Sterling is in the interaction between mind and body. I am not at all convinced by the two constitute an "indivisible whole", which implies that they are distinct, but intertwined entities. Somehow, I'd rather leave this particular conversation open ended until we have a better understanding of how DNA and the complex chemistry that we all carry within us interact - to assume that mind is distinct from body feels a little too "pat" an answer, especially in light of the growing body of evidence that has raised the whole notion of transsexualism as being a subset of IS - a concept that a mere few years in the past would have seemed quite laughable. Then again, I haven't seen the bulk of neuroscience in the last decade or two that might lead towards a clearer understanding of the interaction of the body and the mind (or the intersection of). There is no doubt in my own experience that the chemistry of the body influences our minds in surprising and unique ways that should not be overlooked.

Proving (or Disproving) Gender Identity

One of the complaints that are often levelled at transsexuals (and other transgender people) is that the claim of cross-gender identity is not verifiable (or falsifiable).

Superficially, there is a considerable amount of truth to this. Gender identity, like any other form of identity is essentially expressed only in the form of what an individual can articulate. This is particularly thorny when transsexuals assert an essentialism to their identity, and separate that essential aspect from the social and physical aspects of gender.

As a line of reasoning, it's not a bad tactic - in large part because it is hard to refute with the kind of absolute observation that it implies. But, we can also draw a few interesting lessons from the science of physics. Almost every subatomic particle we know about is understood not from direct observation, but from inference. Observations that confirm larger particles contain small anomalies that aren't quite predicted by the original model. Eventually someone comes along and comes up with a model which describes a new subparticle and the mathematics of that describe the anomalies seen previously.

I will take as a given that there is at least some agreement that gender itself contains multiple axis which intersect with each other. The three that are fairly obvious to me are as follows:

- Physical Gender: This is nothing more than physical sex characteristics - primary and secondary - the contribution of biology.

- Social Gender: The social context in which we each live. Some of us live as men, others as women; and a few live their lives somewhere in between - often adopting the label 'genderqueer'.

- Gender Identity: This is what is between our ears. It is about how we experience the physical and social aspects of gender, and ultimately our emotional response to that treatment.

Clearly, none of these three exists in a vacuum with respect to the others. Social gender is driven by how others perceive us - and first impressions are often the result of observed physical gender. Lastly, Gender Identity impacts how an individual responds to the physical and social aspects of gender.

So, on what basis do we infer the existence of gender identity as distinct from the physical and social aspects of gender?

First, allow me to point out that there is no precise definition of 'man' and 'woman' in our society. There are women who are drawn to behaviours we would often consider to be masculine; and there are men whose behaviours are surprisingly feminine. In other words, their behaviours do not fit what is considered "typical" for someone of their physical gender. This is the first point of anomalous data.

The second aspect of gender that is surprisingly diverse is the physical. As we are learning, just because someone is born with a penis and testes, they aren't necessarily male with respect to chromosomal sex; and a vulva and vagina similarly don't guarantee that the individual is explicitly female when chromosomes are examined.

The third piece of the picture is the very existence of cross-gender identified people - whether we are talking about crossdressers, genderqueer people or transsexuals is quite irrelevant. The fact is that we have a small but significant number of people whose personal narratives fall outside of the man/woman binary even if they are otherwise male (or female) with respect to their physical and social genders.

These three dimensions are key to my argument, for the represent the kind of anomalies in experimental data that led scientists studying physics to suspect that the particles which make up atoms were themselves made up of other, smaller particles. We have a small, but significant group of people who claim identities which do not align with what their physical and social gender experiences would suggest.

In the spirit of other branches of science, we can't just discard evidence because it is inconvenient. This evidence in part leads me to infer that there is a dimension to gender that exists outside of the observable physical and social aspects of the topic. If there wasn't, it's hard to effectively describe the existence of cross-gender identity. The existence of people who fall outside of the binary in the physical and social dimensions further suggests that these attributes exist along a continuum.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will assert that gender identity as an axis of human experience that interacts with the physical and social aspects of gender provides an interesting and significant completion of the model.

The problem of verifying this attribute is non-trivial. Until we take a look at the experience of successful transsexuals (by successful, I mean those who transition and live a balanced, healthy life in their chosen gender).

That I know of, there is no objective test that can be applied that will unequivocally show someone to be transgender. But then again, there is no objective test that proves that someone is innately homosexual, heterosexual or for that matter any other attribute of our personalities really.

So, to understand it, we must use inference, and in particular I turn to the narratives of transsexuals who transition successfully. A reasonably common feature of many transsexual narratives is a lengthy struggle with a crushing sense of dissonance resulting from the disjoin between their physical, social gender experiences and their identity.

As they progress through the process of therapy, hormones and real life experience (RLE), most transsexuals report significant improvements in their experience of the world as the dissonance that they had previously experienced is alleviated. Many describe a state of euphoria once they cease experiencing the dissonance that has been a part of their lives for as long as they can remember. (and it is not uncommon for cross-gender identity to be known and understood by the individual among their earliest memories)

If we can take these narratives at face value, then the experimental evidence is before us - namely that by taking steps to address the dissonance experienced on a daily basis, the dissonance is gradually relieved.

Again, applying a little bit of inductive logic, we can infer the existence of an unseen, but all too real, attribute that is influencing the individual's experience of the social and physical aspects of their gender. Not only is there evidence of an attribute having an impact on the person's experience of the world, but we can alter the nature of that impact for the individual.

Remember, that because we are dealing with an attribute that is not subject to objective examination, it is necessary to do examine it through subjective and inductive means. Consequently, the standards of care that WPATH publishes recommend a cautious, measured approach to treating people who present with gender identity related symptoms. For many transsexuals, transition periods of a decade or more are not unusual. This length of time speaks to a persistence and sense of purpose that cannot be overlooked, for it gives the therapists a great deal of time to evaluate the integration of the person throughout the process. There is research out there that makes it quite clear that for transsexuals, there is great benefit in transitioning.

The strongest evidence for the existence of gender identity comes in the form of how well transsexuals adapt to life in their chosen gender. While it may be true that a few are simply highly adaptable people, it is hard to believe that this would apply to all. Further, the fact that some people approach the notion of transition and then back away leads me to suspect that gender identity occurs along a spectrum, just like most other aspects of being human. (which is why I cited Intersex conditions earlier on in this essay - to make the point that even "absolutes" like male and female aren't necessarily as concrete as we might initially hope)

Further, if gender had purely social and physical attributes, then the tragic story of David Reimer would never have happened. Unfortunately it did, and in doing so, more or less destroyed the validity of any model that addresses gender purely as a social construct. The fact that David refused to be a girl, even when all of the social cues provided said otherwise, tells us a great deal about the persistence of underlying gender identity in individuals.

Have I demonstrated the existence of Gender Identity as an attribute separate and distinct from the physical and social aspects of gender? Not completely. What I have done is described the shape of the theoretical hole that gender identity fills, and pointed out that there is consistent - if somewhat subjective - evidence that the attribute's impact on an individual can be altered, although the attribute itself seems surprisingly difficult to alter.

Michael Coren: The Misogynist Chronicles Ctd

I really should know better than to read Coren's rantings - they are inevitably so full of idiocy it's amazing that he continues to be publishable.

His latest piece is another "get back in the kitchen, woman" column, in which he not only tries to claim that women shouldn't be working, but that the world's problems with parenting are entirely the fault of feminism.

There is more to this case and judgment than just this one passage of Cunningham's ruling, but at first sight it does seem rather strange.

Truth is truth, lies are lies and unless MacLeod's lifestyle goes directly to character it has no influence on the credibility of her evidence. It does, however, say something about her decisions and choices and about how the contemporary world regards motherhood.

We're not supposed to say it anymore but motherhood is pretty important. There are, of course, many women who are forced by economic circumstances to work outside of the home. But there are others who seem to believe that raising a child is less significant than alleged self-fulfilment or even political ambition. Ms. MacLeod, do you seriously believe you can be both an exemplary mother and a full-time politician?

The arrogance of Coren's close to that last paragraph is beyond words. In that one sentence, he has belittled the efforts of every working mother and father in this nation. I know far too many couples who struggle daily with keeping work, finances and raising their families in balance to accept Coren's blithe inference that you can't be both a good mother and a career woman. (or for that matter, a successful career man and single father)

Yes, I know people will say the father can do the job just as well and that it's all about quality time but this is nonsense and denial. Real parenting is about the time that isn't quality.

The quality stuff, the fun stuff, is easy. It's the driving to soccer yet again, the sitting with them when life is awful, the meetings with the teachers, the helping with the homework, the being there stuff that makes you a good parent.

Oh yes, so it's only the maternal parent that can ride out the rough patches, the difficult times? Right. I'll keep that in mind - in the same place that I keep my belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Mr. Coren's attitudes don't even begin to recognize the realities that most families live with today. Perhaps, because of his semi-celebrity status, Mr. Coren has gathered enough wealth that he can afford this idealized stay-at-home world where his wife does all of the hard work raising the children, and he just has to do the "quality time" routine - that isn't real for most parents in urban Canada these days.

Believe me Lisa, sitting in committee rooms with political hacks mouthing the party line is not the same as seeing your child, to and for whom you are responsible, grow by the day into a unique human being.

Perhaps, Mr. Coren, you might want to write that same sentence with yourself as the subject of it? I think a lot of us can think of more pleasant ways to pass the day than in meetings with political hacks.

For Mr. Coren to place the burden of raising children primarily on the female parent, and then complain that "men are treated unfairly" is ridiculous, stupid and infuriating. It is, in fact, the very social structures that he idealizes that resulted in those court rulings he bemoans, not feminism. It has only been in the last 25-30 years that the burden of parenting has become more evenly shared by mother and father - and that has been a product of economic necessity for many.

I will agree that the family courts still make rulings which do not reflect the realities that many single fathers experience on a daily basis, but that will only change when the laws of the land change, and the courts are convinced of the realities. Ironically, those are the very realities that the Status of Women ministry used to fund research into tracking - until the HarperCon$ came along and slashed funding.

[Update 18/08/09]:
Mindelle Jacobs hands Mr. Coren his ass on a plate
[/Update]

Whipping Girl - Commentary Part I

Whipping Girl is an interesting book that explores the intersection between gender, feminism and transsexuality in some interesting ways. I'm in the midst of reading it, and this post is "part one" of a series that I will be writing as I make my way through this book.

Since this series will be written as I make my way through the book, I will not promise that my commentary in later chapters are entirely consistent with what I write today - I reserve the right to have the author persuade me to agree with her perspective where I disagreed earlier.

Introduction, The Transwoman Manifesto and Chapters 1 - 4

The first thing I really like about this book is the author's wonderfully powerful view of the feminine:

In this book, I break with past attempts in feminism and queer theory to dismiss femininity by characterizing it as "artificial" or "performance". Instead, I argue that certain aspects fo femininity (as well as masculinity) are natural and can both precede socialization and supersede biological sex. ... No form of gender equity can ever truly be achieved until we first work to empower femininity itself. - p. 6

To me, this is a powerful statement - it not only encapsulates what I have always felt is deeply wrong with other social/theoretical models of gender. Second, it also encompasses the transsexual narrative in a constructive way, instead of simply attempting to dismiss it by declaring it invalid.

Julia Serano, the author, is deeply critical of how the media and pop culture present transsexuals. With some good reason:

... While Oprah Winfrey's conversation with Boylan was respectful and serious, the show nonetheless opened with predictable scenes of women putting on eye makeup, lipstick and shoes, and the interview itself was interspersed with "before" pictures of Boylan, as if to constantly remind us that she's really a man underneath it all.

Mass media images of 'biological males' dressing and acting in a feminine manner could potentially challenge mainstream notions of gender, but the way they are generally presented in these feminization scenes ensures tha tthis never happens. The media neutralizes the potential threat that trans femininities pose to the category of "woman" by playing to the audience's subconcious belief that femininity itself is artificial. p. 43

Observationally, I think that Ms. Serano is quite correct in her perception that the media misses the mark quite badly when it comes to portraying transwomen (in particular). However, I do not agree with her attribution of the poor presentation to an implicit malice.

I suspect that it is not malice at all, rather it is in fact ignorance and misunderstanding that is being demonstrated. In general, the media tend to focus on the visual. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that television in particular is completely the wrong media when it comes to presenting transsexual issues for this reason. It is easy to identify and pick up on the physical changes that a transwoman goes through as she makes her way through transition. That said, the physical changes are in many respects a reflection of the inner person that is being revealed through transition. Although a picture is worth a thousand words, sometimes a thousand words is greater than any picture will ever be.

While the television producers (or movie producers, for that matter) think they are doing transsexuals a favour with shows like the Oprah episode Serano references, we have to remember that most of the production staff on these shows are not themselves transgender people. That means that they suffer from the basic misunderstandings that most non-transsexual people have about transsexuals. The natural instinct is to gravitate towards those aspects of the journey that are easy to grasp, and quietly ignore the subtle, but vitally important aspects that are difficult to articulate, much less understand. When it can take many transsexuals years to understand themselves, is it any surprise that a fifteen minute segment on Oprah, or the portrayal in a movie, is somehow superficial and limited?

Serano's discussion of the influence and effects of hormone therapy is fascinating. It provides a series of insights into how hormones influence gendered behaviour, and yet also underscores the reality that gender is no more defined by hormones than it is by the shape of one's body, or the interests that one has.

On the other hand, those who are eager to have popular presumptions about hormones confirmed will probably be just as disappointed to hear what has not noticeably changed during my hormonal transition: my sexual orientation; the "types" of women I am attracted to; my tastes in music, movies, or hobbies; my politics; my sense of humor; my levels of aggression, competitiveness, nurturing, creativity, intelligence; and my ability to read maps or do math. While it would be irresponsible for me to say that these human traits are entirely hormone-independent (as it is possible that fetal hormones potentially play some role in predisposing us to such traits), they clearly are not controlled by adult hormone levels to the extent that many people argue or assume. p. 72

To this point in the book, I like where I think the author is going.

My biggest criticism is the degree of hostility or malice that she seems to attribute to the portrayal of transsexuals in general by the media. I suspect that where a sincere effort has been made (e.g. not Jerry Springer), the reality is that the problem is actually a combination of ignorance combined with the limitations of visual media in addressing something the non-visual aspects of human experience - namely that which goes on in our heads.

Her perspective on gender as it intersects reality, as well as the theoretical spaces of queer theory and radical feminism aligns well with my own thoughts on the matter - and go a long distance to putting down the claim by some feminists that transsexuals do not perform meaningful analysis of the concepts of gender and equality. (more on this later...)

Hard Times? Attack The Vulnerable

Public policy is a difficult balance at the best of times, when things get bad, then the uglier side of people comes out.

Such is the case with Concered Christians Canada's latest lobbying effort.

Apparently, they don't like the idea that some of the funding for Calgary Sexual Health Center comes from the City of Calgary through the Family and Community Support Services programs.

Their complaint?

the CBCA a group promoting abortion and the homosexual lifestyle.

In essence, because they have programs intended to address homophobia in schools, and birth control, this is some kind of wicked organization out to undermine society. (Oh yes, and they have the nerve to mention the a-word when talking about pregnancy)

Anyone else notice who this really attacks? Women first off - and in particular women's health and sexual health; and sexual minorities. You'll notice that they aren't offering any constructive solutions, they merely want to remove options from people - making information harder to get.

But then again, coming from a group that published one of the most pathetic straw-man arguments about feminism that I've ever seen, I don't suppose I should be surprised. These people still live in a headspace where information about sexuality is a bad thing - instead of admitting that people make better decisions with full knowledge than when knowledge is denied.

Dear Bishop ...

When you can bear a child, then you have a say in whether a woman can get an abortion - at least for yourself

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is a bill introduced in the United States Congress in 2004. It would remove all restrictions on abortion in the United States, both on the state and federal level. “FOCA goes far beyond guaranteeing the right to an abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. It arrogantly prohibits any law or policy interfering with that right,” says Bishop Serratelli. This is the “dark reality” kept secret by propagandists for ‘choice.’

But that's not the best part of the Bishop's argument. No, once again we find ourselves listening to the whining about the medical practitioners:

Among those no longer free to choose under FOCA, says the bishop, would be pro-life doctors and nurses, whose freedom of conscience is currently protected under the law. Religious hospitals and clinics would also be forced to perform abortions up until the birth of the baby.

Of course, what these clowns omit is that there are cases (albeit rare) where late term abortion is appropriate for both the mother and the baby (largely because the baby won't survive birth anyhow, and would kill the mother in the process).

From where I sit, the notion of "religious hospitals" is chilling. There are far too many religious types running about who would deny treatment on "moral grounds" in all sorts of situations. I'd hate to be sitting in a hospital awaiting treatment, only to be told it was denied on some moral grounds ... but the person in the next bed would be treated.

Here we have some moralizing priest - who is not an MD, nor is he a woman dictating to both what is fundamentally an ethical and moral decision best dealt with individually. Even if a miracle were to occur, and the Bishop found himself suddenly able to bear a child, his say on abortion still would not extend beyond his own body.

At its most fundamental level, the decision to carry a pregnancy through to birth is the woman's. So is the decision to end it early. The medical practitioners need to deal with it as an ethical issue in making their decision to participate. Other parties are only participants in the conversation at the consent of the pregnant woman - in other words only those whom she chooses to involve in the discussion.

When Feminists Go Awry

Don't get me wrong - I'm probably about as ardent a feminist as you can get. I'm not talking about the average feminist that believes in social and political equality, but rather the ones who want to define who can be feminine - or more particularly female - in a way that suits their particular ideology.

Consider these two posts:
Part One Deconstructing Transgenderism
PART TWO: Deconstructing Transgenderism for non-radical feminists

If you can get past the author's condescending attitude and slightly rude language, she's actually trying to make a coherent argument - and sadly misses some key points in her fervent desire to prove how evil transgender people are for feminism.

First, we have someone who claims to not feel comfortable in hiz own body. All well and good, many people are uncomfortable about some aspect of their physical appearance that they wish to change. This individual claims to be a different gender then hiz birth body indicates. Well we have a problem with that word gender. Because feminists keep saying that there is no gender. So if transgenderism is a valid medical condition, and transfolk really do need to change body parts, then the reason they need to change those body parts is because gender is real. Which automatically makes the favorite feminist theory invalid — yanno, the one where they screech that gender is a social construct. Yanno, the one theory which has formed the foundation for all other subsequent feminist theory for the last three centuries. Yanno, the one theory which if rendered invalid automatically reboots every other feminist theory in existence. That one, ya fucking pea-brain.

I hate to point this one out, but it is such an obviously flawed bit of reasoning to begin with - and one which just about every transsexual has needed to dismantle themselves to understand what they need to do.

Let me preface my comments by stating that I will focus upon transsexuals in particular. No offense is intended to other members of the broad transgender world, but the arguments being raised are ultimately focused quite specifically upon those whose gender identity leads them to transition.

The opening supposition here is that if we acknowledge transsexuals as valid, that everything that has ever been theorized or described in feminist theory must become invalid.

This is not the case at all. In fact the reasoning appears to be rooted in the realm of confusing the distinct physical, psychological and social aspects of gender in the first place.

I'm not about to claim the that three attributes do not interact with each other, for they clearly do - otherwise the social aspects of gender would not differ so dramatically between men and women. (again for simplicity, I will not be directly addressing the consequences of intersex conditions directly)

However, I will claim that the writer of the above comments has made quite a significant error in stating ... transfolk really do need to change body parts... that she perceives gender transition as primarily a physical event. It isn't - far from it in fact. Transition has much, much more to do with changing one's social gender than it does the physical gender. The physical changes are almost coincidental - they facilitate the individual's integration into the new social milieu that matches their chosen gender - no more. (Yes, I would go as far as arguing that SRS falls into the same basic category for an awful lot of transsexuals) If one views transsexuals as primarily integrating into a new social gender role, I would claim that the phenomenon should cause very little difficulty for mainstream feminism at all.

However, she isn't finished yet ... and neither am I.

The reason we know those differences must be internal is because the transgendered themselves say that it is impossible to change their internal structure, and so they are altering their external body — the only thing they say which is capable of change. ... But darlings, when those differences become worth switching body parts over, then those differences become major, and then gender discrimination becomes not only reasonable but acceptable.

Ummm ... again, this is the flawed model that presupposes - fundamentally - that biology is destiny somehow. That if one is born with 'male plumbing' or 'female plumbing' that gender starts and ends there. If only it were so simple.

The author gives a 'tip of the hat' to a key part of the transsexual narrative - that of persistence. It is not uncommon for transsexuals to be able to trace their cross-gender identity back to early (and I mean very early) childhood. Even more troubling is the fact that no matter what coping techniques they have tried, those who do decide to transition invariably will have tried just about every combination you can think of, and probably a few that most would never consider - only to find themselves facing precisely the same dilemma time and again.

It is this essentialism of gender identity that is in fact so troubling for gender theorists in general, and the "radical feminists" in particular. You see, it tends to break down arguments that claim gender identity is purely a construct (similar to what writers like Butler argue), but it also flies in the face of the notion of birth gender is all that there is. This is one of the reasons I distinguish between the physical and psychological aspects of gender. In order to reasonably account for the persistence of identity that transsexuals claim, and to still make sense of the social constructs around gender in a meaningful way, it seems to me to be one of the few viable options.

No, claiming that the transsexual is deluded or lying - the Bailey/Blanchard argument - is not adequate here. There is a lack of clinical evidence that corroborates such an argument - clinically, most transsexuals are far more grounded in the reality of their situation than they are given credit for. Like many criticisms of transsexuals, it relies upon declaring the narrative of individual people to be invalid - not on the grounds of actual evidence, but rather because the evidence that the transsexual's narrative presents is deeply troublesome for a particular social theory construct.

Remember, the transgendered claim they can only express their feminine attributes if they have a feminine body. By making each set of approved gender characteristics utterly dependent on which body the transgendered person happens to claim, — guess what we get to say next?

Uh no. Not true at all. In fact, if one considers the transsexual narrative carefully for a while, it becomes clear that in fact what is happening is the physical changes that take place (e.g. growing breasts after taking hormones for a while) merely facilitate the social transition that is taking place concurrently. Those physical cues go quite some distance in making it easier for the transsexual to be perceived by others - and thus treated socially - as a member of their chosen gender.

Does this have any impact upon the feminist desire for equality, or the feminist desire to 'break down the patriarchy'? Not really - not if you are sensible about it.

In fact, I would argue that transsexuals in many ways are natural allies of feminism. These are people who have walked through a world filled with social animosity towards them - subject to hostility and discrimination at almost every turn. If there is someone whose life contains a visceral understanding of what discrimination is, and how society can marginalize people based on what it assumes about them, it is transsexuals. It would be a mistake to assume that a transsexual is oblivious to the social and political challenges presented in their chosen gender. (and even when those challenges severely limit life options, as seen in some Islamic countries, people still transition)

Telling Half The Story

When groups like Lifesite take it upon themselves to parrot the news, you can almost guarantee that they'll only tell half the story.

Consider the following story from Lifesite: Contraceptive Hormones Mutating Fish in St. Lawrence River

Estrogen from birth control pills in highly populated areas of Canada is washing into the water table and flooding the St. Lawrence River, a new study has found. University of Montreal researchers said that the St. Lawrence River near Montreal has an alarmingly high level of estrogens that are mutating male fish.

... and oh-my-goodness, the compounds in question just happen to be those used in female birth control pills.

In fact, if you only read the story on Lifesite, which they lifted their facts from this CBC story for, you'd think that there was this looming catastrophe about to occur, all because of female contraceptives.

Then there's reality:

While researchers found estrodiol, a naturally occurring hormone that all women — particularly pregnant ones — release, they discovered synthetic estrogenic compounds as well.

"They're really pharmaceuticals which are used either as contraceptives or in hormone replacement therapy," Sauvé said.

Sauvé said even though HRT use has dropped dramatically in Quebec in the past few years, what ends up in the wastewater is still significant. Some compounds are filtered out at the sediment plant, but most ends up in the St. Lawrence.

Also implicated are the byproducts of plastics as they break down, and effluent from pulp and paper mills.

It's not like nothing is being done about it either:

Environmental engineers are hoping the hormones and other pharmaceuticals in human waste will be destroyed for good once Montreal installs a new ozonation process at its plant.
...
Sauvé's fellow researchers are among those now running tests to make sure the process will work on a grand scale.

Of course, none of that warrants a mention in Lifesite's article.

And, let's not ignore the impact of the chemistry that industrial activity often dumps into the river systems.

Similarly, Lifesite's article implies that what happens to fish applies equally to humans. Of course, what they don't discuss is that mammal biology and response to estrogen ingestion is quite different than that of fish who literally are living in the chemical stew that is being dumped into the rivers.

Lifesite - when you want a 'Chicken Little' version of the world, and real news sources when you want to know what's actually happening.