The murder last month of a young girl at the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade spawned an endless series of debates on the subject of LGBT rights – or perhaps, to be completely Politically Correct, I should say LGBTQ rights – from which one salient fact became blindingly obvious, namely, that large numbers of Israelis (and other nationalities too, no doubt) have no idea what is the difference between transsexual, transgender, transvestite – and trans fats, for that matter!
I’m not about to bore you all with a lengthy dissertation on the differences. Suffice it to say that “transgenderism” is “used as an inclusive umbrella term used to describe anyone who feels that the sex that was assigned to them at birth incompletely describes or fails to describe them.”
See also the Wikipedia definition.
The key words in this debate are “Gender Identity” ie: “one’s personal experience of one’s own gender. This is generally described as one’s private sense of being a man or a woman, consisting primarily of the acceptance of membership into a category of people: male or female.”
In other words – it isn’t the genitalia you were born with that count, it’s what you feel inside. And if, like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, you happen to have been born with male genitalia but claim to have felt all your life that you were born in the wrong body and are really a woman, then it is your right, as a human being, to live as a woman.
But what does that mean, “to live as a woman”? Perhaps we need to redefine what “being a woman” means? If, as many people now believe, gender roles are defined by society, rather than by biology, is there any real meaning to being a transgender man or woman, without taking the final step and undergoing surgery? If the only “real” difference between men and women is the biological difference, and “real” women are those who have female genitalia and female chromosomes, then Bruce Jenner can dress up in female clothes , wear make-up and chill out with the girls and identify with women and as a woman as much as he likes, he will never, ever, be a “real” woman. And why should s/he need to be, anyway? If we stop assigning gender roles, men will be free to enjoy all the things that are still considered “womanly”, without having to identify as a woman. And all those little girls who used to be politely labelled “tomboys”, because they enjoyed dressing in boys’ clothes and playing with “boyish toys” and hanging out with the guys, but maybe felt that they had been born into the “wrong” body, because they identified with all the things that society had taught them were “boys’ stuff” and weren’t interested in the things girls were “supposed” to be interested in, wouldn’t have suffered years of “Gender Identity Disorder”, before the Politically Correct wisdom of today allowed them to be tagged as “transgender”.
Many leading feminists, however, among them, Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem, are of the opinion that trans women are not real women and that “trans rights” and feminism are mutually exclusive. At the most basic level, their argument is that trans women choose to be women, whereas “real” women had no choice in the matter. On this level, even men who do choose to undergo surgery and become full-blown trans-sexuals, cannot be considered “real” women.
The Politically Correct establishment has chosen to ostracise, boycott, harass and threaten feminists who hold to this train of thought, calling it “hate speech”. And even those who dare to express support for Freedom of Speech on this matter are subjected to abuse and death threats.
Strangely enough, the Thought Police who are so ready to silence anyone who dares to utter any criticism of the Transgender Agenda, or question the “rights” of this “oppressed minority”, are in the forefront of those baying for the blood of Rachel Dolezal, who, although born white, identifies as black. They claim that she, a member of the oppressive white class, has committed “cultural appropriation” and fraud. (Incidentally, I have often heard opponents of Israel accuse us of this, when they claim Israel has “stolen Palestinian cuisine” by marketing falafel as the Israeli national dish, even though it originated in Egypt and is a fast food staple all over the Middle East!) In general, the Politically Correct theory is that it is “cultural appropriation” when the dominant, oppressive class adopts elements of the culture of the oppressed class, but not when the subservient, oppressed class adopts the culture of the rulers.
So why does a man who all his life has “identified as a woman” and “felt he was born into the wrong body” have the right to “fully realise his true identity”, but a woman who has felt all her life that she was born into the wrong (white) body is committing some terrible kind of neo-colonialist race crime by identifying as black?
I know some people will reply that a white person, who has never suffered the discrimination and other indignities suffered by black people, can never understand what a black person goes through. As Guilaine Kinouani put it, “… allies interested in lecturing us on the experience from which their privileged existence has sheltered them need not apply. Allies with the ambition to lead our cause on our behalf need to take a seat and seriously reflect upon their personal motivation.”
By the PC definition, what Rachel Dolezal did falls into the category of “cultural appropriation” because she was born into the privileged, oppressive ruling class, and not only has she adopted the culture of the oppressed class, but she has presumed to tell the genuinely oppressed class how to fight their battle and even to lead them.
But how is what Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner or any other trans woman has done any different? If we accept that Men are, for the most part, the ruling, oppressive class and Women are the oppressed, subservient class, then surely when a man “identifies” as a woman, and adopts the gender roles culturally allocated by society to women, is this not just as much “cultural appropriation” as when a privileged white woman self-identifies as black? Why, then, is the one politically correct and the other politically incorrect?
Could it be – dare I say it – that, once again, it boils down to “the flavour of the day”, to whatever is “now trending”?
I will leave you with one final thought. Gender Identity Disorder or, as it is now known, Gender Dysphoria, is no longer classified as a mental illness. On the other hand, if I were to say that I was born, by mistake, into a human body, that all my life, I have self-identified as a cat, that I like to curl up in a basket to sleep, that, instead of a shower, I like to lick myself clean, that for supper, I like nothing better than a bowl of milk and to pick the scraps off some leftover fish, that I love to prowl the neighbourhood by night, climbing over the rooftops etc., I am quite sure that the men in white coats would have me in a straitjacket before you could say “Jack Robinson” – and I could go whistle for my “human” rights to self-identify as I please.
So, there you have it. A man who identifies as a woman. A white who identifies as a black. A human who identifies as a cat. And yet, the first is hailed by the prevailing PC wisdom as entitled to do so as s/he is realising his/her human rights, the second is reviled as a fraud and a cultural thief and the third is considered to be a nutcase – sorry, I mean “mentally ill”. To use the term nutcase would be grossly Politically Incorrect.