How Feminism Helped Erase Female Biology
By: FDRLST (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It's becoming clear that there are many ways the feminist movement has steered women wrong, and unlike most people, Dr. Debra Soh isn't afraid to point that out. In her new book, The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society, Soh tackles two incredibly hot topics: gender ideology and cancel culture.
The two are intrinsically related in a number of ways. Those who have a view of gender that does not meet the going leftist perspective are in danger of cancellation, but also the left is using this ideology to attempt to essentially cancel sex and gender - and they're using scientific misinformation to do it.
As Soh points out, intellectually dishonest activists in science intentionally misrepresent scientific discovery in the realm of sexology, the study of sex and gender, because "Scientific research is no longer about exploring new ground, but promoting ideas that make people happy." But happiness is not a relevant goal of scientific research. The intentional distortion of science to meet social justice criteria results in bad science and diminishes scientists' ability to do objective research.
Women's liberation?
Initially, the feminist movement went to great lengths to differentiate sex from gender. The basic idea was that sex is defined by a person's reproductive composition, and gender was how society interprets and enforces roles and traits associated with biological sex. The reason feminism did this was to essentially say that women are more than their bodies, and that the vulnerability of women's bodies—as a result of their reproductive functions—was not a good reason to keep women out of public life, or to believe that their capacity to function fully in professional contexts should be diminished.
It made sense back in the 1960s and through the end of the 20th century that women should emphasize that all the burdens society places on women, from beauty standards to caregiver inclinations, are not a direct result of the female sex, but a conglomeration of stereotypes imposed by a patriarchal culture that seeks to oppress them. Feminists made the distinction between sex and gender in pursuit of liberation.
While this was incredibly effective, it was, as Soh reveals, a lie. The problem for Soh is not that gender is identifiable by sex, but that traits of femininity are derided in our culture, because male traits have been considered the norm against which feminine traits are judged. It is perception, not science, that is the problem for Soh.
Soh's argument is that both biological sex and gender—traits typically identifiable as masculine or feminine and associated with males or females—are based in biological reality. The basis for these traits is chemical differences in the brain. Soh roundly debunks the studies showing there are no differences between male and female brains as false both in the formulation of the studies, the way they were carried out, and the analysis of those results. At every level, she finds fault with the way these studies were conducted and the way the data they relied on was gathered.
Yet these studies were taken up by trans activists as a justification for the idea that gender is mutable and changeable. More and more a flawed consensus is embracing the idea that biological sex is fluid. Soh takes issue with the current thinking posed by activists for trans rights, who blot out any course of discourse or dialogue that runs counter to their view. "You cannot know whether your perspective is correct without considering arguments against it," she writes.
Instead of an open conversation, protecting the feelings of those who wish to transition means loudly condemning, ostracizing, and "canceling" anyone who dares to ask questions or point out the inherent contradictions with the idea that gender and sex can be changed. Soh was one of these people. Her views on gender were unwelcomed in the scientific community, and this, she explains, is how she ended up becoming a journalist dedicated to having the conversations so many were afraid to speak.
Soh tracks through the past several years of prominent cancellations, such as James Damore, who lost his position at Google for suggesting there could be reasons other than discrimination that women are not more prominent in STEM fields. Or Lisa Littman, the Brown University researcher who wrote a paper showing that the rising number of young girls who transition could be doing so because of social contagions, not biological factors.
She recalls absurdities like the genderless penguin, Gentoo, which was entirely contrived by zookeepers, the many attempts at defining highly specific alternate genders, and language that divorces women from their own sex, as in "pregnant person," or "individuals with a cervix."
There's also the logic problem, which the LGBTQIA+ community does not want to hear about even a little: The way a person comes to realize that he is a different gender than the one he was born with is to identify with the stereotypical traits associated with the opposite gender. This reinforces the gender binary, rather than liberates it.
The new concepts of gender are regressive, and suggest that a person who does not subscribe to the stereotypes associated with her birth gender is in fact the opposite gender. That is not in service to liberation, but oppression. It is not freeing to think that your body is wrong and must be changed in order to adequately represent who you are.
Girls Need to Become Women
Soh believes that much of the attraction to gender ideology is about the community that alt gender identity grants a person access to. It is bright, rainbow-colored, and fun. There are parades, and marches, things to feel good about, and a whole group of people online who appear to be accepting.
The desire to be part of a community can be very enticing, and it's Soh thinks parents should be on the lookout for. Soh has a whole section of advice for parents who are concerned about their kids seeking social and medical transition. She backs a "therapeutic approach," which "allows a child to explore their gender while being open to the possibility that they may grow comfortable in their birth sex."
She gives true information about the irreversible harm of experimental puberty-blocking drugs and explores the difficulties of becoming a life-long, post-op medical patient, and the ill-effects of cross-sex hormones on bodies. She debunks the myth of trans suicide and shows that the increase in detransitioners is a failure of medicine. Parents are desperate to do the right thing, and they're not getting all the facts. Soh provides them.
One of the big questions Soh tackles is why so many young people, girls in particular, are seeking to transition. The search for community, belonging, biological denialism, and the prejudice against feminine traits are given as reasons that girls would want to transition. But there is one other reason that Soh does not explore - our culture has entirely diminished taking responsibility for one's self and others as a goal.
Girls do not want to grow up into women. We live in a culture that encourages people to be in a constant state of youth, with no responsibility, no aspirations other than dreams and whimsy. When you're told you can live forever as children, the concepts of motherhood and family are diminished. The idea of creating a life where you are in control of yourself and how you navigate the world is tossed out in favor of a victim/oppression hierarchy in which the worse a person is treated by society, the more status a person has.
We do not encourage young people to grow up, to own themselves, to care for their bodies, and to make the most of the life they were given. Instead, we tell them that their dissatisfaction is about other people mistreating them, imposed societal biases, and that the entire culture needs to change to ensure and bolster their happiness.
Soh posits that what is really needed is research that doesn't support a social justice mission. Instead, work should be done to encourage kids to accept and love themselves and their bodies without surgical intervention. Science should not be "rewritten" by those who "throw a loud enough temper tantrum," Soh writes.
She's right. Gender is as much a biological reality as is biological sex. Using language, science, and compassion to separate people from the fullness of their bodies will never lead to happiness.
Libby Emmons is a Senior Contributor to The Federalist. She is a writer and mother living in Brooklyn, NY.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Hats off to Dr Debra Soh!
She obviously knows nothing about transgender/women.
Some background information on Soh
Edited comment:
Being transgender isn't a whim that someone is going to grow out of Vic
She has essentially defined the myth.
What myth?
The one you just stated - that a woman can turn herself into a man or vice versa.
No myth.
Also this Soh is a proponent of reparation therapy.
BOGUS.
She is a proponent of common sense!
No, it's not common sense. It is bogus.
How so?
OK, I am a little confused. Are we talking about conversion therapy?
I can't speak for Tess. She may be.
I'm talking about something else.
What are you talking about? I tried to look it up but there seems to be a big difference in terms being used.
Actually they refer to it as "reparation therapy" or "conversion therapy" in the link I provided.
"Soh got her most recent degree from York University in Toronto. There, she studied with a researcher named James Cantor who is primarily interested in pedophilia and paraphilia—pathological categories of sexual arousal to children and sexual arousal to culturally rejected stimuli. Soh pursued research in these areas. That makes her the academic daughter of Cantor. But Cantor previously worked and published with the folks over at the nearby University of Toronto who were involved in the Canadian Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Gender Clinic. You will recall that the CAMH clinic was dissolved because its providers were performing gender change efforts on children, otherwise known as “reparative therapy” or “conversion therapy.” (In fact, there is nothing therapeutic about these efforts). Cantor’s mentor and academic parents were none other than Ray Blanchard, Ken Zucker and Susan Bradley. Blanchard brought us autogynephilia which I have written about before as being pseudoscience and devolves into the idea that those transgender people who emerge later in life are driven to do so by sexual arousal. Cantor still keeps his hand in, and recently published a criticism of the affirmative guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics for trans kids. In turn, Zucker’s mentor and academic parent was Richard Green who performed sexual-orientation/gender change efforts on children. Zucker and Bradley continued these at CAMH and the University. Green also contrived the pathological category of “gender identity disorder” in time for the DSM III release in 1979.
I refer you to post 1.1.3
Reparation therapy has not only been shown to be ineffective, but also harmful. It's quack medicine at best.
So, Gordy, you are using that term to mean when they try to convert gay people into straight people, correct?
"So, Gordy, you are using that term to mean when they try to convert gay people into straight people, correct?"
That's exactly what it means
Warning - No insults!
OK, I don't believe in that. There is hardcore science backing that the brains of gay people are structurally different than that of straight people.
What insults?!
If it's conversion therapy that is being discussed here; I actually agree that conversion therapy is not only unhelpful but downright harmful. Sexual orientation is something we're born with; it's not a choice people make.
I will say however, that kids [younger than 18] should not be allowed to get transgender surgery or hormone therapy. I've had some deep discussions with grown transgenders and they were not only very eye opening, they would say the same thing about being an adult before making that life-altering decision.
I had a M to F transgender tell me that she appreciated the questions I asked rather than make assumptions; that it was refreshing for someone to actually want to have a conversation about it. We talked about the age she thought about it, why she didn't "transition everything" about her [in a more straight forward way... didn't remove "big Jim and the twins"], how dating worked for her considering the aforementioned, how people have reacted, and she gave me a great big hug and thanked me for having an open mind. It's not just about having an open mind though... it's about asking questions for a better understanding and realizing people are who they are, which doesn't make them good, bad, or ugly. Her decisions would never impact my life in any way... except I learned a lot from her because I was curious.
Sex and gender are two different things. Sexuality is not so black and whit as some people seem to think. Feminism was about advocating women's rights and equality. That's not a bad thing.
happiness is not a relevant goal of scientific research
Really? Talk about "cancel culture"...
"W hen scientists began tracking the health of 268 Harvard sophomores in 1938 during the Great Depression, they hoped the longitudinal study would reveal clues to leading healthy and happy lives."
Ain't that the truth!
These are the participation trophy kids and because they're simply handed everything without working for it, there's no desire to work for anything. Why would they work for something when they don't have to? My cousin still lives at home with his parents at 30 because there's no motivation to leave.
The question is... how to change this culture. I tell my kids all the time that the world doesn't owe them anything; that they don't just get because they want.
My daughter has told me about a couple of her "friends" [which are more acquaintances really] that have had surgeries and are on hormone therapy to become the opposite sex and they're under 18... What parent is not only allowing this to happen, but signing them up and paying for it? Are they not asking questions? Are they not trying to prevent further struggle for their child in the future when they decide they were young, stupid and made a mistake? Are they not seeking therapy for their kids first? I just don't get it. And those that are throwing temper tantrums are the same ones that were allowed to do it when they were little and now are excessively entitled. No one has ever smacked [not necessarily physically] any sense into these kids. These are the same ass-clowns that are wrecking cities because they were never taught that it was wrong... and still aren't being told... when there's no consequences to their actions, there's no reason to follow the rules.
Standing O
My cousin still lives at home with his parents at 30 because there's no motivation to leave.
I suspect there are many in that category. Going from nest to inheritance.
My daughter has told me about a couple of her "friends" [which are more acquaintances really] that have had surgeries and are on hormone therapy to become the opposite sex and they're under 18... What parent is not only allowing this to happen, but signing them up and paying for it?
Great question. Only a pampered, all-accepting generation as the "boomers" could have led the country to this state of absurdity.
Are they not asking questions?
They obviously have placed all their trust in our academic community
Are they not trying to prevent further struggle for their child in the future when they decide they were young, stupid and made a mistake?
And what a mistake it could be!
Are they not seeking therapy for their kids first?
Every resort should be employed.
No one has ever smacked [not necessarily physically] any sense into these kids.
That ended long ago, didn't it? That would be my second resort!
These are the same ass-clowns that are wrecking cities because they were never taught that it was wrong... and still aren't being told... when there's no consequences to their actions, there's no reason to follow the rules.
Mommy & daddy were protesting the Vietnam war don't ya know! Most children seem to idolize their parents.
While my parents weren't protesting anything [dad born in 53, stepdad born in 52, and mom and stepmom born in 56]; I learned at a very young age that parents aren't perfect and they are often assholes without apologies. As a parent of teens and a tween, I let my kids see me make mistakes and I apologize for them. It's how they learn. I was just more observant and stubbornly independent as a kid. I still don't know what made me that way; not really.
I never idolized my parents; they aren't that special. I love them, because part of who I am was formed by the relationships [or lack-there-of] I had with them. I am and always have been a tomboy. My mother wanted a "princess" that she could pretty up and show off. I wasn't what my mother wanted in a child. Although, she surely enjoyed my independence as I got a little older, because that meant less work for her. If I'd have had an obedient personality, I would've just been the person my mother wanted. It's seems like an entire generation of kids were born without their own personalities.
I had friends as a teenager that I couldn't really relate to; thus, friendships that ended, because I couldn't understand why they were okay with their parents doing everything for them and not really wanting to work for what they have or want. They started expecting people like me to drive them places and pay for things... that's not how it works! They'd even expect me to buy them cigarettes... or me allow them to take mine. There's some in every generation. My cousin is only 4 years younger than me, but she was the first to complain about losing her "free" healthcare, her "free" cell phone, and "free" education courtesy of Obama's administration. I quote free because even though she wasn't paying for any of it, those of us working were paying for it. I told her to get a damn job... in her mid 30s without a job. Hell... by the time I was 30, I had been married, had a daughter, divorced, remarried, had a son, and I'd had two houses / mortgages and had paid off two brand new vehicles!!! I get that she grew up in a hard way [mom was on drugs and in abusive relationships and dad had signed off his parental rights to the state, forcing her at 14 to go into foster care; where it wasn't much better than being with her drug-addicted mother and abusive boyfriends]; however, she was smart enough that she didn't get into drugs, alcohol, or abusive relationships herself. So, that says to me that she is smart enough to make something of herself and be independent. If I'd have grown up like that, I'd have extra drive to be independent. She's been shown that she can't count on anyone but herself; yet, somehow she still felt entitled to the "free" stuff the Obama administration offered.
You didn't have it easy by any means. In a way it helped to strengthen you as an individual. You did well.
I, like you, just can't get my mind around how any parent would let their children be influenced by this insidious leftist garbage about changing one's sex. I also can't believe how powerful the left has become in this country to spread such nonsense and have it become accepted.
"be influenced by this insidious leftist garbage"
Leftist how???????????????
From the link I provided:
"When she strays from what she learned in school, her gaps in scientific evidence and her lack of originality are revealed. She portrays herself as a victim of the radical left and often resorts to conspiracy theories about intellectual suppression of scientific evidence, both without providing any evidence of conspiracy. She claims that she left academia because it was hostile and she now professes to be a “journalist.” I will continue to believe that these are rhetorical shiny objects she is forced to use to distract from gaps in her knowledge until I have more evidence."
Where did the transgender nonsense come from, Tess?
Vic, don't get me wrong here... I don't have a problem whatsoever with transgenders. I've known a few and they're good people. The transgenders that I know would say the same thing I do though, which is a person that is considering such a transformation should be at least 18 and talk to a therapist of THEIR CHOICE before making such life-altering decisions.
From Soh
Honestly? Transgenders have been around for a LONG time. This isn't anything new. It's just seen more now than ever.
Ok, that is a bit different from my position.
I beg to differ.
I would have to agree with you totally Ms. A
The first person to go transgender was in the 1950's, and only because they finally had the medical know how to do it:
So that means it's been going on for 70 years now. It is hardly new.
Thank you Perrie!
That was only about 60 years ago and in those days Jorgensen was regarded as what?
So this article tackles two different issues that I don't think should be mixed.
First, feminism, both past and present. The original idea of feminism is that women should be given equal rights and grounds as men have in all aspects of their lives. End of subject. I totally agree with that. Did it actually happen? No. Pay discrepancy shows that plainly. And in studies of the classroom, it has been shown that even female teachers favor boys when hands go up.
I think this leads to the second part that was expressed in the article:
I remember as a young girl wishing to be a boy. Now I know that was back in the 60's, but it was very obvious to me that being a boy brought advantages that being a girl didn't have. Now granted that things have changed to some degree, but one can not say that it has changed so much that a man who has affairs are given a pass and women are called whores, or a man who sleeps with a lot of women is a "player" but once again a woman is a whore or that we still don't have equal pay for equal jobs (it is getting better). I can see how a young girl could still wish to be a boy. That being said, it turned out that I am very much a heterosexual woman despite being a tomboy and wanting to be a boy as a child. Which leads me to the second part.
While I agree that there is a degree of sexual fluidity in all animals, (and we are animals), I don't believe that we should be trying to determine the sexuality and sex of a child. Their minds are still developing and the outcome is yet to be determined. Had my parents done that to me, I would be male now and probably miserable. If a post-puberty teens is still expressing the desire to want to change sex, then I think a full mental evaluation should be done, and not by someone who is biased towards transgenderism. There are other mental conditions that could be in play and also comorbidity involved. If after that they the recommendation is for sexual reassignment, I can accept that. But let's make one thing clear, there is still no clear scientific evidence of how sexuality is determined. Just a few short years ago, this was considered Body dysmorphic disorder, in the DSM IV.
I can go along with most of that.