Friday, December 15, 2017

An atheist asking some of the right questions. . .

Camille Paglia considers herself transgender, is a liberal Democrat, does not believe in God, and one of America's fearless writers when it comes to confronting the politically correct.  She is not the kind of person you warm to but as you listen to her scathing critiques on a variety of subjects, you find out that she is relentless in cutting through the baloney in pursuit of real truth.  Pantheon has just published a collection of some of her essays on sex, gender, and feminism, under the title Free Women, Free MenShe is raw and blunt and takes no prisoners.  But underneath it all is a skepticism about current accepted wisdom and truth that is honest.
Read more of her here.   Allow me to quote her here with regard to transgender: 

Feminists have clashed with transgender activists much more publicly in the United Kingdom than here. For example, two years ago there was an acrimonious organized campaign, including a petition with 3,000 claimed signatures, to cancel a lecture by Germaine Greer at Cardiff University because of her "offensive" views of transgenderism. Greer, a literary scholar who was one of the great pioneers of second-wave feminism, has always denied that men who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery are actually "women." Her Cardiff lecture (on "Women and Power" in the twentieth century) eventually went forward, under heavy security.

And in 2014, Gender Hurts, a book by radical Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, created a heated controversy in the United Kingdom. Jeffreys identifies transsexualism with misogyny and describes it as a form of "mutilation." She and her feminist allies encountered prolonged difficulties in securing a London speaking venue because of threats and agitation by transgender activists. Finally, Conway Hall was made available: Jeffrey's forceful, detailed lecture there in July of last year is fully available on YouTube. In it she argues among other things, that the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers who will need to take prescribed hormones for life.

Although I describe myself as transgender (I was donning flamboyant male costumes from early childhood on), I am highly skeptical about the current transgender wave, which I think has been produced by far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows. Furthermore, I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.

It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from women's studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.

The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one's birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.

In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity. The categories "trans-man" and "trans-woman" are highly accurate and deserving of respect. But like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a "woman" or a "man" simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it.
All of this then begs the question of why the media, why progressives, and why some of the most politically elite in America are pushing a point of view which cannot stand up to scrutiny.  If someone who does not believe in God, who considers themselves transgender, and who is an unabashed liberal politically can poke holes through the fog that is transgender, why do we find it so hard to stand up for what we believe, teach, and confess -- that God made them male and female?


Anonymous said...

Evil makes no sense and confession takes effort.
I hear the sound of the door closing on the ark.

Carl Vehse said...

Corrected: "All of this then raises the question of why the media, why progressives, and why some of the most politically elite in America are pushing a point of view which cannot stand up to scrutiny."

The phrase, "begs the question," is equivalent to claiming some conclusion is based on an unsupported premise or is itself based on the conclusion (i.e., a circular argument). "Begs the question" should not be used to introduce a question.

As to your question, the answer is, "It's worked before."