Recognize what you don’t know
Expertise is a powerful thing.
I do wonder how he knows that though. I wonder how he could know it. Is it possible to know all there is to know about every human society through all of history? Even if some of them left no records of any kind? Do we know, for a fact, that every human society through all of history has left records that tell us some members of all those human societies were trans? I don’t think we do, and I’ll tell you why. It’s because some human societies left very minimal traces. That’s it, that’s the how. There aren’t written or pictographic or similar records for every human society through all of history. Think of Ötzi for instance, aka the Ice Man. Scholars were beside themselves with joy over the informative baggage Ötzi had with him, because informative baggage going that far back is extremely rare. I’m pretty sure there was nothing with Ötzi that established the existence of trans people in his circles. Ötzi is just one guy. There were other human societies contemporary with him that scholars know nothing about, because the evidence is either gone or inaccessible.
If Fogg is willing to make this silly claim why should we be persuaded by his fervent belief in the reality of male women?
And conversely, how does he know that people he calls “transpecies” is something “dreamed up”? I certainly knew of and was familiar with the bizarre phenomenon known as “Otherkin” years before the transgender stuff hit my radar. I mean, why not? If the delusion that men can “internally be women”, why couldn’t the same be said of people who think that they are ‘trapped in a human body’? The human brain is remarkably creative with the ways that it fantasizes and fools itself, and always has been. Seems like Ally is just upset that there is a real parallel to be drawn here, and it doesn’t reflect kindly on transgenderism.
You mean like us trans-giraffes? Look no further.!!! Your search is over.!!!
I actually expect it would be easier to argue that ‘transpecies’ is more universal than ‘transgender’, if we entertain the idea that shamanism is the most universal religion.
He knows it the same way that creationists know that every human society has had a flood myth. So, as surely as this proves Noah’s flood myths based on a global flood, he has proven that transgender is more real than trans-species.
Is it not the case that humans share a common ancestor with other mammals which lived far more recently than the ancestors which first developed sexual reproduction?
We don’t even have records of trans in a lot of societies that left behind records. Gay, yes. Lesbian, yes. But pointing to women who dressed as men to succeed is not the same as trans. It is because of misogyny, and this stupid shit is trying to take our female successes and turn them into trans.
We’re now supposed to take as fact the presence of trans people throughout all of human history, just as we are supposed to accept as fact their status as uniquely marginalized, vulnerable and victimized. To question or doubt any of these claims is deemed transphobic bigotry. No debate, no inquiry, no investigation. NO WAY.
I’m willing to accept the presence of gender non-conforming people (wherever and whenever concepts of gender arose in socities), and the presence of disphoric people.* But “born in the wrong body,” “gender identity takes precedence over the material reality of the body” transness? No. I don’t think there are people like this now. There are people who claim to be trans, certainly they exist. But “transness” itself, no. The idea of a “gendered essence” is as valid and legitimate as astrology. That medicine (along with so many organizations and institutions) has jumped onto this bandwagon is infuriating and tragic.
*All of whom have been retrospectively transed, as genderists borrow from Mormonism.
I think we need one more level there – willingness to accept the possibility of the presence of gender non-conforming people. I don’t think we have to say we accept the presence of gender non-conforming people, because no one knows, because no one can know. It’s not knowable.
I don’t think it’s necessary to add the parenthetical qualifier there. To be gender non-conforming is an entirely comprehensible, intelligible concept using only the common interpretation of “gender”; i.e., a synonym for sex used to disambiguate sex(1) from sex(2) or used in contexts where the focus is not biology. Under this interpretation, gender is sex and sex is gender, and the difference is in what the word choice signifies about the content of the phrase/sentence/discussion as a whole. So in “gender non-conforming”, “gender” would refer to biological sex and indicate the way in which someone is non-conforming; e.g., some deviation from sex-typical behavior, dress, temperament, etc.
The advantage of this interpretation is primarily one of parsimony. It keeps concepts clear and makes it so we don’t have to accede to anything that might come back to bite us later. For example:
Accepting the presence of those with gender dysphoria seems innocuous, but it isn’t. The DSM-V defines gender dysphoria in such a way that even conceding that people have it concedes that the ideology is true, because the condition is defined by symptom and cause. If someone I were debating the existence of God defined humans as creatures created in the image of YHWH, I’d be unable to accept that “humans” exist. This is precisely what Genderists do with the definition of gender dysphoria. Accept that people have gender dysphoria, and you accept their definitions of “gender” and “gender identity” and all that comes with them.
Excellent point. That’s one reason why I used “dysphoria” as a general term of psychological discomfort without specifying its nature, source, or cause. Projecting gender dysphoria into the past is unwarranted, but I don’t think positing other forms of mental distress that could be described as “dysphoria” is that much of a stretch.
I’d be prepared to accept the ‘all cultures’ comment as hastily worded hyperbole, provided Fogg was willing to admit it was incorrect as stated. The thing that gets me though, he thinks species identities don’t exist except as a discrediting ploy from conservatives. Sweet summer child.
I wouldn’t. I think there has to be some kind of ratchet in reasonable people that prevents them from thinking they can know that every society in human history has had trans people. It’s just such a wild claim.