#but biology is fact and the differences between men and women are physically clear

[broannalmao]

Were you always anti trans?

yes and no, i’m not anti-trans, I do believe gender dysphoria is very real and they truly feel like they’re not their gender.

what I’m against is the inconsistencies and problems that come about when you don’t call it what it is, a type of delusion

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Alex Byrne and Carole K. Hooven

Published: Apr 3, 2024

As you may have noticed, “sex” is out, and “sex assigned at birth” is in. Instead of asking for a person’s sex, some medical and camp forms these days ask for “sex assigned at birth” or “assigned sex” (often in addition to gender identity). The American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association endorse this terminology; its use has also exploded in academic articles. The Cleveland Clinic’s online glossary of diseases and conditions tells us that the “inability to achieve or maintain an erection” is a symptom of sexual dysfunction, not in “males,” but in “people assigned male at birth.”

This trend began around a decade ago, part of an increasing emphasis in society on emotional comfort and insulation from offense — what some have called “safetyism.” “Sex” is now often seen as a biased or insensitive word because it may fail to reflect how people identify themselves. One reason for the adoption of “assigned sex,” therefore, is that it supplies respectful euphemisms, softening what to some nonbinary and transgender people, among others, can feel like a harsh biological reality. Saying that someone was “assigned female at birth” is taken to be an indirect and more polite way of communicating that the person is biologically female. The terminology can also function to signal solidarity with trans and nonbinary people, as well as convey the radical idea that our traditional understanding of sex is outdated.

The shift to “sex assigned at birth” may be well intentioned, but it is not progress. We are not against politeness or expressions of solidarity, but “sex assigned at birth” can confuse people and creates doubt about a biological fact when there shouldn’t be any. Nor is the phrase called for because our traditional understanding of sex needs correcting — it doesn’t.

This matters because sex matters. Sex is a fundamental biological feature with significant consequences for our species, so there are costs to encouraging misconceptions about it.

Sex matters for health, safety and social policy and interacts in complicated ways with culture. Women are nearly twice as likely as men to experience harmful side effects from drugs, a problem that may be ameliorated by reducing drug doses for females. Males, meanwhile, are more likely to die from Covid-19 and cancer, and commit the vast majority of homicides and sexual assaults. We aren’t suggesting that “assigned sex” will increase the death toll. However, terminology about important matters should be as clear as possible.

More generally, the interaction between sex and human culture is crucial to understanding psychological and physical differences between boys and girls, men and women. We cannot have such understanding unless we know what sex is, which means having the linguistic tools necessary to discuss it. The Associated Press cautions journalists that describing women as “female” may be objectionable because “it can be seen as emphasizing biology,” but sometimes biology is highly relevant. The heated debate about transgender women participating in female sports is an example; whatever view one takes on the matter, biologically driven athletic differences between the sexes are real.

When influential organizations and individuals promote “sex assigned at birth,” they are encouraging a culture in which citizens can be shamed for using words like “sex,” “male” and “female” that are familiar to everyone in society, as well as necessary to discuss the implications of sex. This is not the usual kind of censoriousness, which discourages the public endorsement of certain opinions. It is more subtle, repressing the very vocabulary needed to discuss the opinions in the first place.

A proponent of the new language may object, arguing that sex is not being avoided, but merely addressed and described with greater empathy. The introduction of euphemisms to ease uncomfortable associations with old words happens all the time — for instance “plus sized” as a replacement for “overweight.” Admittedly, the effects may be short-lived, because euphemisms themselves often become offensive, and indeed “larger-bodied” is now often preferred to “plus sized.” But what’s the harm? No one gets confused, and the euphemisms allow us to express extra sensitivity. Some see “sex assigned at birth” in the same positive light: It’s a way of talking about sex that is gender-affirming and inclusive.

The problem is that “sex assigned at birth”— unlike “larger-bodied”— is very misleading. Saying that someone was “assigned female at birth” suggests that the person’s sex is at best a matter of educated guesswork. “Assigned” can connote arbitrariness — as in “assigned classroom seating” — and so “sex assigned at birth” can also suggest that there is no objective reality behind “male” and “female,” no biological categories to which the words refer.

Contrary to what we might assume, avoiding “sex” doesn’t serve the cause of inclusivity: not speaking plainly about males and females is patronizing. We sometimes sugarcoat the biological facts for children, but competent adults deserve straight talk. Nor are circumlocutions needed to secure personal protections and rights, including transgender rights. In the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision in 2020, which outlawed workplace discrimination against gay and transgender people, Justice Neil Gorsuch used “sex,” not “sex assigned at birth.”

A more radical proponent of “assigned sex” will object that the very idea of sex as a biological fact is suspect. According to this view — associated with the French philosopher Michel Foucault and, more recently, the American philosopher Judith Butler — sex is somehow a cultural production, the result of labeling babies male or female. “Sex assigned at birth” should therefore be preferred over “sex,” not because it is more polite, but because it is more accurate.

This position tacitly assumes that humans are exempt from the natural order. If only! Alas, we are animals. Sexed organisms were present on Earth at least a billion years ago, and males and females would have been around even if humans had never evolved. Sex is not in any sense the result of linguistic ceremonies in the delivery room or other cultural practices. Lonesome George, the long-lived Galápagos giant tortoise, was male. He was not assigned male at birth — or rather, in George’s case, at hatching. A baby abandoned at birth may not have been assigned male or female by anyone, yet the baby still has a sex. Despite the confusion sown by some scholars, we can be confident that the sex binary is not a human invention.

Another downside of “assigned sex” is that it biases the conversation away from established biological facts and infuses it with a sociopolitical agenda, which only serves to intensify social and political divisions. We need shared language that can help us clearly state opinions and develop the best policies on medical, social and legal issues. That shared language is the starting point for mutual understanding and democratic deliberation, even if strong disagreement remains.

What can be done? The ascendance of “sex assigned at birth” is not an example of unhurried and organic linguistic change. As recently as 2012 The New York Times reported on the new fashion for gender-reveal parties, “during which expectant parents share the moment they discover their baby’s sex.” In the intervening decade, sex has gone from being “discovered” to “assigned” because so many authorities insisted on the new usage. In the face of organic change, resistance is usually futile. Fortunately, a trend that is imposed top-down is often easier to reverse.

Admittedly, no one individual, or even a small group, can turn the lumbering ship of English around. But if professional organizations change their style guides and glossaries, we can expect that their members will largely follow suit. And organizations in turn respond to lobbying from their members. Journalists, medical professionals, academics and others have the collective power to restore language that more faithfully reflects reality. We will have to wait for them to do that.

Meanwhile, we can each apply Strunk and White’s famous advice in “The Elements of Style” to “sex assigned at birth”: omit needless words.

Mr. Byrne is a philosopher and the author of “Trouble With Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions.” Ms. Hooven is an evolutionary biologist and the author of “T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone That Dominates and Divides Us”

[ Via: https://archive.today/P05Ci ]

==

There's an entire world of animals out there who mate and reproduce successfully all day, every day, without needing humans to "assign" them a sex. The idea that we are separate from all of this is as much evolution denial - or, arguably, more so - as Ken Ham's stupid zoo boat.

Predictably, this essay was deemed "transphobic" by the same people who insist that "sex and gender are separate" - how it can be "transphobic" when accurately describing sex has no bearing on your "gender identity" is beyond me - and who not long ago were insisting that "nobody's saying sex isn't real." Of course, now they're saying it out loud, such as nutcases like Jonathan "India" Willoughby, who is male, literally claiming to be female. If he's not being an obnoxious troll, he's certainly dangerously delusional.

How did we get to the point where sex - which is a real thing that is objectively true and the entire reason our species exists at all - is being denied, and "gender identity" - which is mystical, metaphysical hokum of gender thetans being trapped into improperly matched meat prisons - is unquestionably true?

[menalez]

Am i off or is it the case that all this chasing brain scans to show we can identify female vs male 67 or whatever percent of the time (which as you rightly point out is a pretty weak prediction) is also overinterpreting to at all conclude it = gendered or sexed brain by birth/genetic/innate nature.

I think of it like this. Because patriarchy and sexism is MULTIPLE THOUSANDS OF YEARS old, and pervasive globally, and how we are raised in it has physical affects on not just the rest of our bodies, but also our brains………. a scan could just be learning to pick up on the changes that tend to happen to the brains of people treated as women are. Who are encouraged to do certain things and banned or discouraged from others. Who are deprioritized with nutrition and resources globally. Who are moulded toward certain beliefs and personalities. And then it would be no wonder that not only are these signs found in 60-something % of women, but also pop up with gay men and other gnc men (cough cough the trans identified males who think they’re women or non-binary)

Are they accounting for this? Also are these studies looking globally or basically just whoever they can grab off the street in Boston?

Other thought: even if let’s say female typical estrogen levels in the womb or throughout puberty or something = certain significant brain changes……… that impact everything from the brain physical structure to abilities and behaviors…. even IF that were true (and I don’t think we see evidence that it is) A MALE WITH THAT TRAIT WOULD BE AN ATYPICAL MALE NOT A FEMALE PERSON. Female-typical brained male would be a female-typical brained male in the same way a giraffe-typical heighted human wouldn’t therefore be a giraffe.

This is all on top of the initial point that you and Cornelia Fine cover with delusions of gender and debunking the gendered/sexed brain

Are they accounting for this? Also are these studies looking globally or basically just whoever they can grab off the street in Boston?

in general neuroimaging studies are: time-consuming, expensive, and difficult to conduct. this is why they don't tend to have very high samples and also why they are usually limited to whatever labs they have. for it to be done globally, there would have to be a cooperation between numerous labs around the world and they need to follow the same exact methodology, it would be difficult to organise. so you can bet that almost every neuroimaging study and its finding is "whoever is willing to participate in the vicinity of the lab" rather than a global effort.

that said, yeah the people who make these arguments ignore the fact that socialisation does influence brain development. we don't even need to account for the fact that this same socialisation has been existing for generations, even in one generation the brain is impacted by socialisation. the way girls are taught, talked to, what theyre encouraged to do, what theyre taught is their purpose, what theyre discouraged from doing, etc ALL will play a role in how the brain develops. these people do not seem to understand that brain plasticity means that our environment, not just our biology, often impacts how our brain develops. a lot of brain differences are thought to be down to environment, namely socialisation. a second factor is hormones bc yes hormones can affect the brain. but despite these two factors, there is significant overlap between "male" and "female" brains AND there is significant variation in "male" and "female" brains. there is a lot we do not know yet, like why these differences & overlaps exist.. but we do know that its existence makes it clear that brains are not sexually dimorphic.

i wish i could find it rn but i read research papers before on how the vast majority brain differences found when comparing males & females either appear post-puberty or due to differing experiences & socialisation. we aren't actually born with distinctly different brains that u can distinguish sex with, and even as adults, our brains are not as distinguishable by sex as some ppl pretend

[a-queer-seminarian]

we are taught to interpret Esau’s trading of his birthright for a bowl of stew as impulsiveness, even (in Christian language) as a ‘weakness of the flesh.’ He chooses instant gratification over the farther off but far more valuable thing, and thus proves himself unworthy of his firstborn status and all it entails -- Abraham’s wealth and social power, but also Abraham’s relationship with God.

i don’t believe that.

Esau gave in to Jacob’s demand because he knew that Jacob would never have the means to compel Esau to make good on his word.

Jacob was physically weaker. Jacob was set to inherit the tiniest fragment of the wealth and resources that Esau would inherit. how on earth would Jacob ever wrest the birthright and the blessing he was owed from Esau?

Esau’s ‘crime’ here is less impulsiveness, and more a trust in the status quo. his world of patriarchy and primogeniture promised him his inheritance, whether he was a good man or bad, an honest man or a liar. he could tell his younger brother whatever Jacob wanted to hear, but down the road he could trust that their father would bestow the blessing on Esau anyway.

his reliance on the status quo is what allows Esau to hand over his birthright so easily -- because he knows that merely saying it’s Jacob’s now does not make it so.

Esau’s great failing is that he assumes that his culture’s will is God’s will.

the problem for Esau is that God does not play by human rules.

____________

in the Book of Genesis and throughout the rest of scripture, we see God working within the bounds of cultural assumptions and norms, rolling with the binary systems that human societies construct -- right up to the point where Xe doesn’t.

In The Soul of the Stranger: Reading God and Torah from a Transgender Perspective, Jewish scholar Joy Ladin focuses on the elements of gender inherent to the system of primogeniture that places the firstborn Esau over the secondborn Jacob in every way. To her, biblical maleness comes in different “flavors” -- the roles expected of a firstborn son are different from those assigned to non-firstborn sons. She says,

“Jacob and Esau are both male and are born almost simultaneously, but they are assigned at birth to very different gender roles. Because Esau emerges from the womb first, he is considered the firstborn, heir not only to Isaac’s worldly possessions but also to the relationship with God that Isaac inherited from his father, Abraham. Though Jacob is born holding onto his brother’s heel, he is considered the second-born, expected to accept the authority of his older brother, who, after their father’s death, will be the head of the family. Like the gender binary, this law of inheritance, called ‘primogeniture,’ creates a lifelong, life-determining binary division between males who are and those who aren’t firstborn sons. And like the gender binary, primogeniture turns biology, in this case birth order, into destiny. The way male children are raised, the roles they are assigned, and the futures toward which they are steered are determined by whether they are or aren’t firstborn sons.” (p. 36)

Esau has grown up understanding that his inheritance is his destiny. It’s what he’s been born for, what he’s been raised for, what he is entitled to. Why would he believe that he would ever have to make good on his silly promise to Jacob to hand over that destiny? It’s set in stone, inviolable.

at least it is in the eyes of men. but not to God.

“If God were committed to the gender binary idea that people are unchangeably defined by the gender roles we are assigned at birth, then either Esau would have been destined to inherit Isaac’s relationship with God, or Jacob would have been born first. But as God reveals to Rebekah before the twins are born, God intends for the younger brother to usurp the elder, prenatally linking God’s blessing to trans experience. (Ladin, pp. 37-38)

in the ancient past and in the present day, countless roles get assigned to us as soon as -- or even before -- we exist the womb. biology is presumed destiny in so many ways: our gender, our race, the class and geopolitical location and family into which we are born, supposedly map out what our personalities will be, how our lives will go. and certainly these things do shape us, both by nature and nurture -- generational traumas come packed into our very cells, while our environment and how others treat us based on our assigned roles impact how we perceive ourselves and the world around us.

but even so, even so, biology is not destiny. especially not if God has any say in the matter.

for God is the great binary breaker, no respecter of persons or prejudices, unbeholden to the status quo. indeed, God almost seems to delight in upending our assumptions about who is blessed. secondborn sons and eunuchs, women and disabled persons, impoverished persons and disenfranchised peoples -- these are the ones whom God selects, again and again, to be recipients and agents of divine blessing. “blessed are the poor;” “the last shall be first.”

Esau assumes that biology, his status assigned based on birth order, is destiny. he does not fear his younger brother, who is rendered powerless by their culture to claim what he is promised in a moment of hunger. and probably this is safer for Jacob -- because when Esau does finally realize, too late, that Jacob is a real threat, Esau becomes murderously angry.

when Isaac is duped into giving Jacob his blessing after all, Jacob cannot stick around to claim the wealth and status that comes with it -- he must flee, or die under Esau’s hand.

i wonder if some of the violence we see in our time, and across every time and place, stems from the same kind of rage and fear that Esau experiences:

the rage of the ones who are raised to believe the world belongs to them, that they are entitled to certain blessings and privileges, only for the truth to pounce on them unexpectedly -- the shocking truth that biology is not destiny, that they are not inherently superior, that what they thought would be theirs without question might could be snatched from them after all.

the divine right to rule. manifest destiny. the ‘white man’s burden.’

white men who assume they are entitled to white women, so that the mere thought of a Black man winning a woman’s heart is enough to incite them to brutality.

white women who understand that the police are their personal body guards, to call down upon the bodies of Black adults and even Black children on a whim -- and are indignant in the rare circumstance that they are told otherwise.

men and white people who expect the best jobs and properties to go to them, so that anyone else advancing over them seems an appalling injustice.

cis women who perceive trans women as “invading their spaces;” cishet couples who think LGBTQ/queer couples ruin “the sanctity of marriage;” persons who are accustomed to being accommodated without even realizing it sneering at “safe spaces” and trigger warnings....

and on and on.

Esau had every reason to assume that his biology determined his destiny -- that he could make an impulsive promise, make a big mistake, and everything would still turn out in his favor. he was born into a world that told him so every day -- even that God sanctioned these human assumptions and systems. But God does not.

“God’s disruptions of gender in these stories make it clear that even the gender roles that matter most to human beings are not sacred to God. ...God in the Torah uses gender, but is not bound by it. On the one hand, God depends on gender to transmit the covenant across time and space, so that even after hundreds of generations, Jews will still see themselves as children of Abraham. On the other hand, God disrupts gender as a way of making God’s power and presence known. ...In these stories, faithfulness to gender has little to do with faithfulness to God. In fact, God counts on the fact that people are not bound by gender roles. The covenant with Abraham is founded on Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob’s embrace of trans experience: their willingness to live outside the gender roles they were born to and become the kinds of people they are not supposed to be.” (Ladin, pp. 57-58)

Faithfulness to human constructs has little to do with faithfulness to God. God blesses us when we can imagine beyond the narrative we are assigned -- as Jacob does in this story where he demands a birthright the world does not intend for him....and as Esau eventually does.

In Genesis 33, Esau catches up to Jacob after decades apart -- and Jacob expects violence. He sends gifts of livestock to Esau and conceals his most cherished family at the back of his huge household. But to his bewilderment, Esau is no longer murderously angry at having “lost” what he grew up assuming he was entitled to -- he rushes to his brother, throws his arms around Jacob’s neck, and weeps.

Esau was raised believing that he would own everything, and his brother nothing -- that Jacob would be one of many members of Esau’s household, subservient to him. But now, he does not even feel entitled to the livestock that Jacob offers him: “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what’s yours.”

Jacob is relieved by this unexpected reconciliation, exclaiming to Esau that “Seeing your face is like seeing God’s face, since you’ve accepted me so warmly!” He never expected Esau to accept what Jacob has known all along -- that biology is not destiny; that neither of them are bound to human constructs like birthright; that they can live a different way than the way prescribed to them, one in which both of them thrive.

___________

now, this story is by no means perfect. Jacob was able to imagine bigger for himself, to escape the destiny assigned to him -- but he does not imagine big enough. he does not use his new station to liberate others.

he becomes a patriarch -- assimilates into patriarchy and the power to own other human beings, to rule over every member of his household, rather than challenging the whole system that once oppressed him. i am reminded of trans persons, persons of color, women, who once they manage to acquire power for themselves never use it to help their fellow marginalized persons up. they land positions of power and use that power to oppress others as they were once oppressed, rather than using it to try to forge a new, better system for all.

Jacob the second-born becomes Jacob the patriarch. his household will be fraught with all the woes that come with this system that stifles all within it. his wives will hate each other and battle each other for what little power they can grasp. his sons will do the same, subjecting the younger Joseph to violence when, like Jacob, this little sibling dares to dream of being something greater than what his society assigns him.

what if Jacob could have imagined bigger? what if he had used his one fragment of shining clarity about how patriarchy and primogeniture stifled his true self to empower others, not only himself?

what if we could imagine bigger? what new and beautiful world could we build?

[savingher]

5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 <3

5 . )     if your muse is a woman of color, how does her cultural and racial heritage impact her?  are there gender based traditions she takes part in?

lei has a strong connection to her native hawaiian heritage, and has always held it very close to her chest. as a kid, she grew up in lahaina on the island of maui. while she grew up in one of the more highly populated areas, which meant there was heavy tourism, she the city also has a heavy focus on the history of the island and hawaiian culture. however, her strongest connection to her heritage will always be the stories her mom and aunts would tell her from stories about growing up on the island to far older legends and the food. the assistance in preparing different dishes, even at a young age, was always very important to her. and one of the things she carried with her even when she and her siblings were forced to move from the island after the death of her mother. it was her attempt to really keep their connection to their heritage alive, which feels so much more difficult without the connection to the island itself. especially without her mom. even when she settles in savannah, she always imagines that she'll move back. she'll go home.

in terms of gendered traditions, other than her assistance in preparing meals for feasts and dinner parties on special occasion, the most important one she participated in when she was young was hula. it was something her aunts and her mom used to teach her and her sister, as both had done so more seriously in their youth. however, they lost their mom before they were ready to do it anymore seriously. although, lei really wanted to. close to when she lost her mom, she was preparing to ask if she could take real lessons. because she wanted to be as good as her mom, and she wanted to know just as much. she wanted the history classes and the rigorous training. she rarely talks about it, but never getting the chance is something that lingers in her mind.

15 . )     is she outspoken about equal rights and feminism? is she intersectional in her feminism?

damn, IS SHE. lei is very vocal about equal rights and various issues. her feminism specifically, is something she talks about a lot. she talks about it a lot in regard to politics and academia, as well as in hollywood. often speaking about the additional impacts of race on the issues of feminism. to lei, other than her brother, there is nothing that matters to her more than leaving the world a better place to some extent when she leaves it. even if the impact she leaves is small, she needs to do something. she wants women to have a voice. whether they're like her or not, she places such high regard on the way she was taught women are, that she firmly believes their voices are needed. not just because there are so many women in the world, and they all deserve to be represented, but because women in leadership just lead differently. women prioritize different things, the address issues differently. and she thinks that the more women with their voices loud and clear...the more likely real change can happen.

her feminism is intersectional. regardless of your race or sexuality or the biology you were born with. as far as she's concerned, womanhood is more about what's in your heart than anything else. she'll be the first to correct anyone who tries to discount the womanhood of anyone who identifies as a woman.

20 . )     for wlw muses, when did they first realize their attraction to other women? did they struggle with this or accept it easily?

lei didn't start questioning her sexuality until she was 16. at first she thinks she just misses her parents and her sister. that she's looking for anyone to grab onto, and it just so happens her best friend is the closest person to her. but when she feels an odd pang of bitter jealousy when her best friend kisses her boyfriend in the hallway, lei realize nope. that is very much not just grasping at straws. she doesn't really struggle with the fact that she likes a girl, so much as she struggles with it being her best friend, who is straight and dating someone. it's something she keeps very close to her chest. she doesn't tell her best friend she likes girls until they're at a high school graduation party two years later. that night her friend tells her the same thing and lei almost passes out, but nothing happens from there. lei is just relieved to have told anyone.

before she goes away to college she comes out to her aunt and her brother, and it's easy enough. there's no blowout, which is unsurprising. but there's a while where lei struggles, knowing neither of her parents ever found out. that she never got to tell them. that she'll never know if they'd still love her. but as she grows older and goes to college, and think back on her youth and the crushes she hadn't even registered she had ... she wonders if her parents knew all along.

25 . )     for queer women of color, how does their identity intersect with their racial heritage? are there experiences and aspects of it specific to that intersection you want to share?

sexuality wasn't something either of her parents ever talked to her about. it wasn't something she heard a lot about in her early life either. however, she always wondered if that was because of her aunt who never married. it isn't until she's older and visits home that she realizes her aunt eventually does get married. just to a woman. between her parents' families, there are different points of view on sexuality, however her parents had never pushed much of anything. it's something she wonders about when she's older, but she fears learning the truth.

30 . )     is there a hobby or interest that she was discouraged from pursuing because of her gender? did she continue anyway?

when in high school, she was did engage in model un and the debate team. and there was some discouraging from male teachers, but that was more from the fact she was quiet in class. she assumes there was probably some vague sexism in there as well, however she quickly proved herself. overall, she'd never been discouraged from much. her parents never discouraged her, and her aunt knew better than to try once she was left with the last two akana kids.

35 . )     how does your muse deal with sexism in the workplace?

honestly, she doesn't deal with a lot of it. for the most part when she waited tables for a while she'd experience some from customers, and that was the one time she'd ever grin and bear it. however, when she starts her real career, working in podcasting ... she's really her own boss. so she doesn't really face it. and when she does face sexism in comments or in every day life, she addresses it on the podcast. she'll write little parody songs for her youtube channel. overall, she makes it clear it's something she won't tolerate. she has no interest in it.

40 . )     if your muse is neurodivergent, how does this impact their relationship to gender and sexuality?

she isn't neurodivergent, however she does suffer from depression at different points in her life. and she does have minor ptsd. however this doesn't have a major impact on her views of gender or sexuality. if anything, her understanding of her father's depression and struggle with alcoholism impacts her view of gender in terms of men. and what is perceived as male strength. she learned that no matter how strong you were, whatever your gender ... life can still break you down. but it didn't make her view any gender as better or less than. it made her see fewer differences. really, it made her just think less of gender.

45 . )     for neurodivergent muses of color, how did these two aspects of their identity intersect?  any experiences you want to share?

again, she isn't nerodivergent. but in regard to her struggles with depression and such, there wasn't really much of an intersection with that and her cultural identity. particularly because she wasn't around those who shared her identity aside from her siblings and father at the time. however, based on memories, she can't help but wonder if she was home. if she was on the island, if she'd feel better. if that physical connection to her origin would help.

50 . )     give me a headcanon that has to do with their identity, whether it’s gender, sexuality, race or a mix of it all!

lei really should have questioned her sexuality earlier, because her first crushes actually happened in conjunction. her neighbors when she was 9 were a set of twins. ana and manny. she liked them both at the same time, and she always struggled to choose between who to play with as they got a little older and they didn't want to hang out with each other. the first time someone who wasn't a family member kissed other on the cheek it was when manny did it in front of ana, who was mad and told lei she wasn't allowed to marry her brother. they two girls joked they'd marry each other one day instead.

𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭  𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬  𝐟𝐨𝐫  𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞  𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 .     ››         @fabreai.

[sciencespies]

Over 100 years of searching hasn't found key differences between male and female brains

https://sciencespies.com/humans/over-100-years-of-searching-hasnt-found-key-differences-between-male-and-female-brains/

Over 100 years of searching hasn't found key differences between male and female brains

People have searched for sex differences in human brains since at least the 19th century, when scientist Samuel George Morton poured seeds and lead shot into human skulls to measure their volumes.

Gustave Le Bon found men’s brains are usually larger than women’s, which prompted Alexander Bains and George Romanes to argue this size difference makes men smarter. But John Stuart Mill pointed out, by this criterion, elephants and whales should be smarter than people.

So focus shifted to the relative sizes of brain regions. Phrenologists suggested the part of the cerebrum above the eyes, called the frontal lobe, is most important for intelligence and is proportionally larger in men, while the parietal lobe, just behind the frontal lobe, is proportionally larger in women. Later, neuroanatomists argued instead the parietal lobe is more important for intelligence and men’s are actually larger.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, researchers looked for distinctively female or male characteristics in smaller brain subdivisions. As a behavioral neurobiologist and author, I think this search is misguided because human brains are so varied.

Anatomical brain differences

The largest and most consistent brain sex difference has been found in the hypothalamus, a small structure that regulates reproductive physiology and behavior. At least one hypothalamic subdivision is larger in male rodents and humans.

But the goal for many researchers was to identify brain causes of supposed sex differences in thinking – not just reproductive physiology – and so attention turned to the large human cerebrum, which is responsible for intelligence.

Within the cerebrum, no region has received more attention in both race and sex difference research than the corpus callosum, a thick band of nerve fibers that carries signals between the two cerebral hemispheres.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, some researchers found the whole corpus callosum is proportionally larger in women on average while others found only certain parts are bigger. This difference drew popular attention and was suggested to cause cognitive sex differences.

But smaller brains have a proportionally larger corpus callosum regardless of the owner’s sex, and studies of this structure’s size differences have been inconsistent. The story is similar for other cerebral measures, which is why trying to explain supposed cognitive sex differences through brain anatomy has not been very fruitful.

Female and male traits typically overlap

Even when a brain region shows a sex difference on average, there is typically considerable overlap between the male and female distributions. If a trait’s measurement is in the overlapping region, one cannot predict the person’s sex with confidence.

Chart shows how measurements that differ between sexes (f = pink, m = blue) also overlap. (Ari Berkowitz, CC BY)

For example, think about height. I am 5’7″. Does that tell you my sex? And brain regions typically show much smaller average sex differences than height does.

Neuroscientist Daphna Joel and her colleagues examined MRIs of over 1,400 brains, measuring the 10 human brain regions with the largest average sex differences.

They assessed whether each measurement in each person was toward the female end of the spectrum, toward the male end or intermediate. They found that only 3 percent to 6 percent of people were consistently “female” or “male” for all structures. Everyone else was a mosaic.

Prenatal hormones

When brain sex differences do occur, what causes them?

A 1959 study first demonstrated that an injection of testosterone into a pregnant rodent causes her female offspring to display male sexual behaviors as adults.

The authors inferred that prenatal testosterone (normally secreted by the fetal testes) permanently “organizes” the brain. Many later studies showed this to be essentially correct, though oversimplified for nonhumans.

Researchers cannot ethically alter human prenatal hormone levels, so they rely on “accidental experiments” in which prenatal hormone levels or responses to them were unusual, such as with intersex people.

But hormonal and environmental effects are entangled in these studies, and findings of brain sex differences have been inconsistent, leaving scientists without clear conclusions for humans.

Genes cause some brain sex differences

While prenatal hormones probably cause most brain sex differences in nonhumans, there are some cases where the cause is directly genetic.

This was dramatically shown by a zebra finch with a strange anomaly – it was male on its right side and female on its left. A singing-related brain structure was enlarged (as in typical males) only on the right, though the two sides experienced the same hormonal environment.

Thus, its brain asymmetry was not caused by hormones, but by genes directly. Since then, direct effects of genes on brain sex differences have also been found in mice.

Learning changes the brain

Many people assume human brain sex differences are innate, but this assumption is misguided.

Humans learn quickly in childhood and continue learning – alas, more slowly – as adults. From remembering facts or conversations to improving musical or athletic skills, learning alters connections between nerve cells called synapses. These changes are numerous and frequent but typically microscopic – less than one hundredth of the width of a human hair.

Studies of an unusual profession, however, show learning can change adult brains dramatically. London taxi drivers are required to memorize “the Knowledge” – the complex routes, roads and landmarks of their city.

Researchers discovered this learning physically altered a driver’s hippocampus, a brain region critical for navigation. London taxi drivers’ posterior hippocampi were found to be larger than nondrivers by millimeters – more than 1,000 times the size of synapses.

So it’s not realistic to assume any human brain sex differences are innate. They may also result from learning. People live in a fundamentally gendered culture, in which parenting, education, expectations and opportunities differ based on sex, from birth through adulthood, which inevitably changes the brain.

Ultimately, any sex differences in brain structures are most likely due to a complex and interacting combination of genes, hormones and learning.

Ari Berkowitz, Presidential Professor of Biology; Director, Cellular & Behavioral Neurobiology Graduate Program, University of Oklahoma.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

#Humans

[transmedicalism-for-beginne-blog]

Transmedicism Rant:

Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders- Fifth Addition, or the DSM-5 States that "GENDER is used to denote the public (and usually legally recognized) lived role as a boy or girl, man or woman, but, in contrast to certain social contructionist theories biological factors are seen as contributing, in interaction with social & psychological factors, to gender development."

--

Couple things to note here.

1) Biology influences Gender.

2) Look at that nice little fuck you to the social sciences in their sentence.

3) "boy or girl" "man or woman" There's only two genders, who would have guessed.

"But wait, what about "Gender Identity" ?"

Well the DSM-5 states; "GENDER IDENTITY is a category of social identity & refers to an individual's identification as male, female, or some other category other than male or female."

There you go Tucutes a nice label for y'all to use. "Gender Identity is a Social construct while Gender is a mix." (Sarcasm)

So, why the fuck is this important?

This distinction is a real issue Now because, Tucutes & MOGAI are trying to pressure the American Psychiatric Association, or the APA to remove the Mental Illness label from Gender Dysphoria, and this isn't because the condition doesn't fit the definition of mental illness it's because, of Tucutes/MOGAI putting their feelings before facts. Just in case anyone is confused. Mental Illness =/= (Doesn't mean/equal) it's made up, or pyschological. People suffer from cronic depression because, of a chemical imbalance in their brain, So despite the counter intuitive name, it doesn't mean it’s made up.

So, the problem is by attempting to cement this idea that Gender is entirely social into the minds of the masses, they're implying that anything under the label Transgender, Is Social. Except it's NOT.

Gender Dysphoria is Biological.

Transgender doesn't only mean "people that want to transition" i.e. ftm men & mtf women. Transgender is an incredibly broad label, that everyone has a somewhat different definition for.

The APA, the people who write the DSM & all of its additions, State;

"TRANSGENDER - the broad spectrum of individuals who transiently or permanetly identify with a gender different from their natal gender."

So that includes people:

- With Gender Dysphoria

- Who are Gender Non-Conforming

- Who are "Genderq^eer"

- and all that other bs ( the MOGAI "genders")

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

We have evidence that Gender Dysphoria is a biological & neurological condition, but

we don't yet have evidence that any of the MOGAI "genders" has any sort of biological basis.

In fact the Tucute/MOGAI community completely miss that point completely by CREATING their own distinction between Sex & Gender. So, that they don't n e e d a biological basis.

My purpose in saying all this is that Gender Dysphoria should NOT be in the same category as MOGAI “genders” Gender Dysphoria has biological evidence. MOGAI “genders” do not. Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder. MOGAI "genders" are not. Not a medical mental disorder at least. (lol.)

Having a biological & medical disorder lumped in with all that other stuff is creating too much fucking confusion.

And, Yes I said disorder. Because, if you were born with a condition, that you have no control over, that makes you 'feel like you were born in the wrong body, or the wrong sex/gender' & this feeling is so debilitating it causes you untold ammounts of stress, discomfort, and most the time depression, that's a disorder. Mechanically that's obviously not supposed to be the way the brain works, because if it was, humans would've never made it past prehistoric times.

"But, Alec, why is it so important that it retains the Mental Illness label? That just makes people feel bad?!?"

It's important because it changes how the Medical Community treats the issue. As Blarie White once said, " Why can't we do both, though. That's like saying, that um, you can simultaneously fight for people to be kind to Autistic people and also look for a cure. How about we do both. That'd be great. Because, actually insisting on this accepting people, and to just don't worry about it because, “everything's normal, everything's fine”; It actually leads to political correctness, which leads to no research being put into a cure. Which exacerbates all the suffering." (Her response to, "We can't support trans people and a cure at the same time.)

I don't agree that just because we don't currently have such a miracle pill, or maybe even something close to that, that doesn't mean we as a society should deny the Medical Reality and not continue research in that area. You're arguing Secondary reasons when agreeing with this, Not Primary reasons. You're arguing against the Medical illness label not necessarily because, on its face it shouldn't be labled as such but, because of a precieved secondary effect of; Some people can justify being biggoted or can make individuals feel real bad. Which I understand, I get the dog whistle concern here. However, that's not going to help medical treatment in the long run.

"But, Alec. There's people who want to transition but, don't have dysphoria!@?!!"

AND THAT IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO SEPARATE GENDER DYSPHORIA FROM MOGAI "GENDERS"

Because, all the research on Transsexuals, (and for the record I'm going to start using the term Transsexual to refer to individuals who were born with Gender Dysphoria (a biolgical condition.) to distant it from the MOGAI "genders". ) All the research we have are of people with Gender Dysphoria, Because the idea that there are even people who believe they were born the wrong sex/gender BUT, don't have dysphoria is relatively NEW.

So, it hasn't been studied. We don't even know if it's a biological condition or a pyschological one.

Unfortunately, We don't yet have a biolgical/medical test to determine whether someone has gender dysphoria. We don't yet have a biological way of measuring what someones innate Gender or “Gender Identity” is, or what ever the fuck MOGAI & Tucutes are calling it.

We do have evidence that it is indeed innate BUT, not a clear "let's scan your Brain to see if you have Gender Dysphoria. That is, Biological Gender Dysphoria. NOT a pyschological issue that makes you think you're transgender.

Another reason why the distiction needs to be made so clear.

People who have purely pyschological reasons for wanting to be the opposite gender ( or MOGAI "genders") should NOT being using biological hormones & physical surgery. Those options should only be for people that have a biological & neurological condition. People who use feelings towards their gender do not have the ability to be transient ( to change )

"But, Alec. It sounds like you're talking about Trans-Regret. That's a tiny number of cases and a dog whistle for Transphobia!!?"

SHUT YOUR FUC--

Supposedly Trans-Regret is not common. I say supposedly because, I haven't done research into that yet. Cause' it's not a direct correlation to what I am talking about now. Regret could be very low now but, as Blaire White once said, " This is a very new phenomenon. There are no long term studies that show a person 30/40 years old, that had transitioned at 12/13 & how their life ended up. It's just never happened, it's all still very new."

Because, until recently the stigma against transsexual people was so high that it would be very uncommon for someone who only has a pyschological complex to go through the transitioning process.

However, Because we are living in F U T U R E W O R L D O F 2019 society has become far more accepting of Transsexual people. Which is good and the way it should be, BUT it does also mean that it would be more likely for people who are only psychologically "trans" or Gender Non-Conforming, to be confused with people who have a biological & neurological condition.

The DSM and all it's addtions are supposed to be a guide book to help doctors make a distinction between someone who actually has gender dysphoria someone who does not. Biological VS Physiological.

" But, Alec. I just read the DSM's criteria of Gender Dysphoria, and there is nothing specifically in it about making this distinction between biological VS pyschological???"

Yes, and that's because psychiatry (APA) looks at stuff through primarily a biological lens. So, they are operating under assumption of if you don't have a biological reason for something, then you don't have it. Combine that with the fact that this current societal focus on understanding Transgender issues, is NEW, and the DSM-5 was written before that & this creates a problem. Since we don't yet know how to create a definitive biological test, We can only rely on Self-Reporting & Observable behaviors. Which is why it is so problematic. Doctors have to somehow navigate this complicated maze to figure out whether someone actually has gender dysphoria or is just Gender Non-Conforming, or going through a phase/MOGAI "genders". This is why Transsexual people feel like they have to go through so many hoops, and all this MOGAI stuff is only making the issue more confusing for everyone. Which means, you're making it harder for doctors to figure this shit out. Which means, more hoops.

Now let me make myself clear I'm not blaming the Trans movement or even suggesting that it must go away because "tHeY're cOnfUsIng tHe cHilDRen!1!!"

There's no hidden dog whilstle in what I am saying, I am only stating what is the reality of the situation and Unfortunately because our society, until recently, has been very biggoted for years aginast certain individuals that don't fit into specific gender roles, the Tucute Trans community is incredibly sensitive to anything that can even remotely be perceived as an attack. Which I understand. However, the problem is when ever people go under intensive physical treatment for a condition, it’s the Medical community and even society's duty to make sure that an individual really requires that treatment because, having medical treatments that are either 'over prescribed', or turned out horrible have littered our history from blood letting, to shock treatment, to even staring at the sun for health reasons, & we can't forget about lobotomy. Even now, there are concerns of kids being over prescribed Adderall & Riddilen*, Which is basically speed. Not to mention all the people with pain killer addictions. Being prescribed things you don't need can lead to messing with how your body and brain functions. That's why its important, although difficult, to put our emotions aside when dealing with these medical issues to avoid the Medical pitfalls that we humans have fallen into time, & time again.

Or just take everything I just said as merely "a dog whilstle" for Transphobia because I'm actually "a hateful biggot."

"Even if you're not a Transphobe Alec, you keep making this distinction between biological and pyschological, Assuming doctors can even untangle these 'interlinked concepts'. Why should a person, who only has gender dysphoria psychologically not be allowed to Transition????"

Because, If your 'gender dysphoria' is purely pyschological, that means that “Gender Dysphoria” you’re experiencing is a SYMPTOM of another problem. It's not the problem itself. Allow me to give you a very over simplified example.

Lets look at Game of Thrones, Cersei Lannister, on several occasions has stated that she wishes she was born a male. Lets say there was some magic potion in G.O.T. that she could take to change her sex. You better believe she would drink it but, reason for this is not because, she has Gender Dysphoria. Its not because, she has some innate feeling of being born in the wrong body/gender/sex. The reason is because she exist in a world where her biological sex/gender limits her ability to get power. Which is her primary goal. So, her complex for not being a male is secondary, it's a means to an end. The doctors evaluating whether or not someone has gender dysphoria needs to concentrate on making sure the underlying problem is that the person feels that they are born the wrong gender because, they simply are. Something biologically innate. Not that they were born the wrong gender, because they develop a negative pyschological complex about what means to be their birth gender, or a negitive pyschological complex about a specific body part that just so happens to be a body part realted to biological sex because, an issue like that is transient and can be revolved through other means.

"Fuck you Alec, that Game of Thrones expamle was shit. It's far more complicated!!1!"

Yes, real life is more complicated.

So let me give you a more grounded example. While simultaneously criticizing the DSM & all of its additions. So far I have been seemingly deflating the DSM which maybe makes you believe that I think the DSM is some h o l y b o o k. The literal word from g o d. I don't and it's not. It has some very serious flaws in my opinion. One of those flaws is in the creitiera of gender dysphoria. Right now, and adolescent female could be going through puberty; the time her chest starts growing, & if you happen to be this female or simply talk to someone about their experience you will find that many of those individuals actually had a quite negative experience with it when they were adolescent.

One such story that has always stood out to me is when a friend told me about how she developed breasts when she was 13, and how incredibly disturbing and some times scary for her it was to see grown men lusting sexually after her even though she was only 13. At least to me, it doesn't seem that out of the ordinary that someone in that position could develop a pyschological complex about their breasts.

In today's confusing world they could incorrectly assume that complex is meaning you have some Gender related issue, possibly even gender dysphoria, & under the current DSM-5 criteria, someone in that position could be incorrectly diagnosed as someone having gender dysphoria.

In fact, I once read an article titled, "My daughter isn't Transgender, She's a TomBoy."

The article describes how because, of all this confusion, This young 7 year old girl who is Gender Non-Conforming keeps being asked by teachers, her pediatrician, and even random adults who have known her for years, if she's sure she's not a boy. Now, this girl has a strong sense of self so she's able to say, " No, I not a boy. I'm just a girl who likes things that are typically male." This is a happening because, of this confusion of Gender Dysphoria being compared to Gender Non-Conforming people &/or MOGAI "genders" and that’s because, we don't have this clear distinction between Transsexual and Gender Non-Conforming people &/or MOGAI "genders". My fear is that not only are we confusing the fuck out of adults with the incorrect conflation of these terms but also, confusing kids who may be simply gender non-conforming making them think they are Transsexual.

And as a last note; Perhaps it's unfair for me to point this out but, I do find it somewhat ironic that the Tucute Trans community is fighting against the idea that the strict binary view of male and female gender by advocating a strict binary view of Sex & Gender.

End Rant.

Problems with the DSM-V:

1) The DSM-V is heavily criticized by the medical community for not using any scientific evidence to back up many of the things it says. It’s also just heavily criticized in general. This alone makes it an unreliable source as there isn’t any scientific evidence suggesting you don’t need gender dysphoria to be trans ergo the statement “ you don’t need Dysphoria” means nothing.

2) Psychology uses “transgender” as an umbrella term and has for a very, very long time. It includes trans people, transvestites, crossdressers, and other GNC people. Just because usage outside of the psychology field has shifted “transgender” to more mean “trans people” doesn’t mean that the psychology field has. This means that they’re likely speaking about their own term for what transgender is and seeing as how there’s no differentiation clarifying this, it’s ignorant to assume they’ve suddenly changed the meaning of one of their terms without stating as such.

3) Potentially most importantly, transgender/trans falls under the field of neurology/biology, not psychology. This means that while mental health professionals can certainly help us, it doesn’t mean they have all the answers and it doesn’t mean that their word is more important than that of the harder sciences involved.

Please share to spread awareness. I hope this helps someone.

[arcticdementor]

Near the beginning of Ibram X. Kendi’s celebrated best-seller, How to Be an Antiracist, Kendi writes something that strikes me as the key to his struggle: “I cannot disconnect my parents’ religious strivings to be Christian from my secular strivings to be anti-racist.” Kendi’s parents were “saved into Black liberation theology and joined the churchless church of the Black Power movement.” That was their response — at times a beautiful one — to the unique challenges of being black in America.

And when Kendi’s book becomes a memoir of his own life and comes to terms with his own racism, and then his own cancer, it’s vivid and complicated and nuanced, if a little unfinished. He is alert to ambiguities, paradoxes, and the humanness of it all: “When Black people recoil from White racism and concentrate their hatred on everyday White people, as I did freshman year in college, they are not fighting racist power or racist policymakers.” He sees the complexity of racist views: “West Indian immigrants tend to categorize African-Americans as ‘lazy, unambitious, uneducated, unfriendly, welfare dependent, and lacking in family values.’” He describes these painful moments of self-recognition in what becomes a kind of secular apology: a life of a sinner striving for sainthood, who, having been saved, wants to save everyone else.

…

Liberal values are therefore tossed out almost immediately. Kendi, a star professor at American University and a recent Guggenheim Fellowship winner, has no time for color-blindness, or for any kind of freedom which might have some inequality as its outcome. In fact, “the most threatening racist movement is not the alt-right’s unlikely drive for a White ethno-state, but the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ one.” He has no time for persuasion or dialogue either: “An activist produces power and policy change, not mental change.” All there is is power. You either wield it or are controlled by it. And power is simply the ability to implement racist or antiracist policy.

The book therefore is not an attempt to persuade anyone. It’s a life story interspersed with a litany of pronouncements about what you have to do to be good rather than evil. It has the tone of a Vatican encyclical, or a Fundamentalist sermon. There is no space in this worldview for studying any factor that might create or exacerbate racial or ethnic differences or inequalities apart from pure racism. If there are any neutral standards that suggest inequalities or differences of any sort between ethnic groups, they are also ipso facto racist standards. In fact, the idea of any higher or lower standard for anything is racist, which is why Kendi has no time either for standardized tests. In this view of the world, difference always means hierarchy.

…

He’s capable of conveying the complicated dynamics of that violent mugging on a bus, but somehow insists that the only real violence is the structural “violence” of racist power. After a while, you realize that this worldview cannot be contradicted or informed by any discipline outside itself — sociology, biology, psychology, history. Unlike any standard theory in the social sciences, Kendi’s argument — one that is heavily rooted in critical theory — about a Manichean divide between racist and anti-racist forces cannot be tested or falsified. Because there is no empirical reality outside the “power structures” it posits.

…

He wants unelected “formally trained experts on racism” (presumably all from critical race-theory departments) to have unaccountable control over every policy that won’t yield racial equality in every field of life, public or private. They are tasked with investigating “private racist policies.” Any policy change anywhere in the U.S. would have to be precleared by these “experts” who could use “disciplinary tools” if policymakers do not cave to their demands. They would monitor and control public and private speech. What Kendi wants is power to coerce others to accept his worldview and to implement his preferred policies, over and above democratic accountability or political opposition. Among those policies would be those explicitly favoring nonwhites over whites because “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Every now and again, it’s worth thinking about what the intersectional left’s ultimate endgame really is — and here it strikes me as both useful and fair to extrapolate from Kendi’s project. They seem not to genuinely believe in liberalism, liberal democracy, or persuasion. They have no clear foundational devotion to individual rights or freedom of speech. Rather, the ultimate aim seems to be running the entire country by fiat to purge it of racism (and every other intersectional “-ism” and “phobia”, while they’re at it). And they demand “disciplinary tools” by unelected bodies to enforce “a radical reorientation of our consciousness.” There is a word for this kind of politics and this kind of theory when it is fully and completely realized, and it is totalitarian.

…

I once thought I understood what sex and gender meant. “Sex” meant male or female; “gender” meant how you express that sex. Simple enough. I also thought that homosexuality was defined as a sexual and emotional attraction to someone of your own sex, as would be implied by “homo” meaning same, and “sexuality” meaning, well, sexuality. This baseline agreement on basic terms was a good start for a reasoned debate. You can tell someone’s sex by their chromosomes, hormones, genitals and secondary sex characteristics. You can tell someone’s gender by the way they manifest their sex and sex characteristics. People have infinitely different ways to express their maleness or femaleness, and cultures create different norms for these expressions. And my basic position was that we should expand those norms and accept all types of nonconforming men and women as very much men and very much still women.

But now I’m confused, and I don’t think I’m alone. Slowly but surely, the term “sex” has slowly drifted in meaning and become muddled with gender. And that has major consequences for what homosexuality actually is, consequences that are only beginning to be properly understood. Take the Equality Act, the bill proposed by the biggest LGBTQ lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign, backed by every single Democratic presidential candidate, and passed by the House last May. Its core idea is to enhance the legal meaning of the word “sex” so it becomes “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity).”

The Act provides four different ways to understand the word “sex,” only one of which has any reference to biology. Sex means first “a sex stereotype”; secondly “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related condition”; thirdly “sexual orientation or gender identity”; and last “sex characteristics, including intersex traits.” Yes, at the end, we have “sex characteristics” in there — i.e., biological males and females — qualified, as it should be, by the intersex condition. But it’s still vague. “Sex characteristics” can mean biologically male or female, but can also mean secondary sex characteristics, like chest hair, or breasts, which can be the effect of hormone therapy. So in fact, the Act never refers to men and women as almost every human being who has ever existed on Earth understands those terms.

…

In these lesson plans, here’s the definition of homosexuality: “a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted.” Homosexuality is thereby redefined as homogenderism. It’s no longer about attraction to the same sex, but to the same gender. I’m no longer homosexual; I’m homogender. But what if the whole point of my being gay is that I’ve always been physically attracted to men? And by men, I mean people with XY chromosomes, formed by natural testosterone, with male genitals, which is what almost every American outside these ideological bubbles means by “men.” I do not mean people with XX chromosomes, formed by estrogen, with female genitals, who have subsequently used testosterone to masculinize their female body — even though I would treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve in every context.

…

Of course, anyone can and should like whatever they like and do whatever they want to do. But if a gay man doesn’t want to have sex with someone who has a vagina and a lesbian doesn’t want to have sex with someone who has a dick, they are not being transphobic. They’re being — how shall I put this? — gay. When Rich suggests that “it’s not just possible but observable and prevalent to have ‘preferences’ that dog-whistle bigotry,” and he includes in the category of “preferences” not liking the other sex’s genitals, he’s casting a moral pall over gayness itself. Suddenly we’re not just being told homosexuality is “problematic” by the religious right, we’re being told it by the woke left.

That’s the price of merging gender with sex. It’s time the rest of us woke up and defended our homosexuality.

[badmousestuff-blog]

CPGB-ML Final Report

A Marxist-Leninist case against the CPGB-ML’s reactionary stances on gender identity

I would like to note that the CPGB-ML is hardly worth writing an entire article about alone.  Were it simply an outlier case, this party would merit no investigation.  However, while they certainly epitomize the worst reactionary elements within the Left on the issue of LGBT+ rights, the fact is that echoes of this sentiment can be found across the Left in a variety of flavors and intensities.  It speaks to an unwillingness to employ the actual theory underlying Marxism, and instead relies on vacuous notions of gender, race, and so on that are treated as self-evident, eternal truths that are not engaged with historically, if indeed they are engaged with in any scientific capacity whatsoever.  This approach fails whole swathes of the working class in its failure to meaningfully engage with their conditions beyond pure, abstract class struggle.

If we are to criticize the CPGB-ML on their stances as Marxist-Leninists ourselves, it necessarily must be done through the lens of dialectical materialism, as it is foundational to ML theory and practice.  We cannot simply declare their opposition to identity politics to be “reactionary” without justification; baseless dismissal and name-calling is pointless sectarianism.  In the same light, we cannot hide behind identity politics just because it is being attacked in a reactionary fashion.  Instead, we must demonstrate the need to introduce the class element back into our discussion and action regarding identity rather than rejecting all ideas about identity wholesale, so that these disparate movements can be directed at the true source of their oppression and not accept meager concessions by bourgeois society.

However, I must admit that this argument will be somewhat simplistic, though somewhat lengthy; partly for ease of explanation, and additionally for the purpose of meeting time constraints.  Some details may be glossed over in the course of putting forth this argument.  While I believe it to be sufficiently strong as a counter-argument to the vague arguments of the CPGB-ML et al., under no circumstances should it be seen as an authoritative end to the discussion, nor should it be treated as a source in and of itself.  Rather, it should be seen as (a) an attempt to provide a summary of the various ideas it draws upon, (b) a more complete argument for LGBT+ struggles from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, rather than several disconnected articles touching on the subject, and (c) an effort to do away with the dismissive chauvinism that has occasionally characterized discussion among Marxists upon this very issue.

I will provide references to the sources at the end of this document.  Given the non-academic nature of this document, I have elected not to adhere strictly to formatting with respect to in-line citations and references, and will simply append references to the source material that most directly informs this argument at the end of this document.

PART ONE—The case for LGBT+ issues as class issues

If we are to form our critique, it is necessary to determine the function of gender roles (specifically binary gender roles, or simply ‘the gender binary’) within capitalist society.  To that end, we would clearly do well to discern how gender roles came to be in the first place.  While this piece will not exhaustively cover the historical progression of these roles, it is necessary to at least put forth a rudimentary explanation of their formation and evolution.  From there, we can examine their role in capitalism, the important connection it has to LGBT+ struggles, and the intersection between normative gender roles and other systems of capitalist oppression.  With this, we can avoid the vulgar materialism and often outright metaphysical idealism of the CPGB-ML without resorting to faulty assertions of our own.

I. Sex and gender are both constructs

The naive suggestion often put forth is that these roles are a logical consequence of natural sexual differentiation, but this is simply not the case.  While there may be a case to be made for biology playing a part in the beginning of gendered division of labor, biology alone does not determine nor explain why women occupy a subordinate position in capitalist society, or indeed any class society where women occupy such a position.  This is not to mention the vague ways in which ‘biology’ is often appealed to when putting forth such claims about the oppression of women.  It is not ‘self-evident’ or ‘common sense’ that the division of labor between men and women (and indeed, even the mere existence of those two categories) is natural; even if it were, it is undialectical.  Nothing is “just so,” it is a product of what comes before, and gives rise to what comes after.

Biology itself, as mentioned, is also vaguely defined, so much so as to be useless.  If by biology we mean “genetics,” then the two assumed categories of XY men and XX women are insufficient to explain the other chromosomal configurations which produce perfectly valid people who are still considered men and women.  If we instead mean to refer to, say, menstruation and pregnancy as necessary identifiers of womanhood, then sterile women and women who do not menstruate could not count; yet, we still consider them to be women.  If, again, we mean gonads, then there are people with both sets, or gonads that do not match what is expected by their secondary sex characteristics.  For every biological definition anyone has put forth, one can find plenty of examples of people for who that definition is inconclusive.  These indistinct definitions leave these people having to defend their identity; if biological differences were so clear, these defenses would not be necessary.  Furthermore, biological definitions of sex are not consistent—what is implied physically by ‘woman’ or ‘man’ is not consistent between people or between periods in history.  The notion of sex, like gender, is a product of its time.

The notion of fundamental sexual difference, that is, biology determining society and morality, is not even very old in the first place.  It is a relatively new idea.  The two-sex model was predated by the Galenic one-sex model, asserting women as an ‘inversion’ of men, lacking ‘vital heat’.  That is to say, women were defined by their lack.  There was an inherent essence of ‘manhood’ that defined men positively, as possessing an innate characteristic which made them men; it would not be until the advent of the two-sex model that “science” would come to regard women and men as biological categories.  Notably, these categories purported to explain the dominant social phenomena regarding men and women (sexism, to be blunt) as a natural consequence of biology.  In short, the notion of ‘biology’ was used to justify existing systems.

This is, as many Marxist-Leninists (and even non-communists, to be fair) understand, the role of the intellectual class as they are employed by the ruling class in any class society; the legitimization of the existing system through science, religion, philosophy, and so on.  While any given intellectual may not do this, the ruling class always rewards those who work in this way.  Ideas which uphold the system upon which the ruling class justifies their existence and maintains their supremacy are rewarded and propagated; ideas which contradict these are suppressed if they are discovered, else they are left to eke out a minimal acceptance in society at large.  Intellectual output is not totally neutral, and often has this incentive from above to support the system.  This output also has a large role in generating the “common sense” of the day; that is, common sense is simply the default, shaped at least in part by the ruling class, in absence of personal experience which contradicts it.  This is how one should look at the biological determinist perspective; the science does not support it, and the idea did not even come around until fairly recently in human history.

II. Division of gender is division of labor

Anthropological studies strongly contradict the notion that labor had always been divided in a gendered way.  That is, it disputes Engels’ notion that procuring the necessities of life (read: productive labor) was the role of the man, and that this had simply always been the case.  Instead, productive and reproductive labor was more equally spread among all members of early human societies.  The family as we know it had not even begun to materialize, as mating was only very loosely restricted at the time.  Monogamy was nowhere close.  In this sense, women taking on more of the reproductive labor makes some sense, as it was impossible to know for certain who one’s father was—but it was certain who the mother was.  However, this does not imply that reproductive labor was always relegated to the women; as stated above, anthropological studies demonstrate that labor was much more equally divided in early humanity’s development.

Even as recently as feudal Europe, women had not yet been forced fully into their current subservient role.  While the old matriarchal system of lineage had or was giving way to patriarchal lineage, women still had some degree of autonomy with regards to their access and ownership, limited as it may have been, to the means of subsistence and production.  Men had gained the right to pass property down to their own children, but he did not own it in the sense we think of today.  In other words, men had changed how property was passed down, but not fundamentally how property was owned, which was still collectively, by the family.  He could not yet leverage this state of things into a totally dominant class position.

‘Traditional’ gender roles as we understand them had not yet crystallized at the time when the rising bourgeois classes in feudal society were, crudely speaking, privatizing all the land and means of production.  They were transforming common property into private property, into capital; in doing so, they were depriving the peasantry of access to this property and relegating them to wage labor.  This was a marked difference from the old system, by which a family (not to be confused with the modern “nuclear” conception of the family) could reasonably accumulate additional wealth in their usage of this common property.  The upcoming bourgeois classes sought to appropriate this property, and the surplus that was generated through labor done on “their” property would also be appropriated.

Obviously, this upset the peasantry.

This is not to say that feudal society was egalitarian in any sense of the word.  What is important here is to see the transition from early man’s communal, roughly egalitarian distribution of productive and reproductive labor, to today’s gendered roles dividing “masculine” productive labor from “feminine” reproductive labor.  This transition necessarily implies a transformation at some point from the unity of production and reproduction to the division of production and reproduction.  Thus, gender roles cannot possibly extend back indefinitely in humanity’s past.

The crystallization of the basis for this distinction happened generally during the period of primitive accumulation mentioned above.  The peasantry, now stripped of the commons they had been accustomed to, resisted this change, and the rising bourgeois classes had to divide the peasantry against itself.  The creeping changes towards patriarchal systems of lineage and inheritance had given men leverage over women, but not yet total control.  Backed up by religious institutions, sweeping attacks against women’s control over their reproductive capabilities were made.  This coincides with the witch hunts of the 15-1600s and it was through this process that reproductive labor was divested from productive labor in its entirety.

The bourgeois classes, which were emerging out of the feudal society of the time, needed laborers to work on their property.  While before, as mentioned, families would keep the surplus wealth produced by their labor, now the bourgeois classes would appropriate that surplus.  Only productive labor, labor which would now generate surplus value for the bourgeois classes would be of any value to them.  Reproductive labor—child rearing, housekeeping, etc—produces no surplus value, and as such is worthless to capital.  However, reproductive labor is obviously not something you can do away with as a society.  This task had to be assigned to someone, and women were the gender created by class society that would be responsible for this “worthless” reproductive labor.

This is obviously not to say that women were created by capitalism.  However, the gender—the set of expectations, their role—was crystallized in this transition phase.  The role of reproductive labor was to now support the man’s productive labor; productive labor, in turn, was now in service of the bourgeois classes and their desire to accumulate wealth.  By turning women and men against one another, whether through accusations of witchcraft or other diabolic practices, the rising bourgeois was able to defuse the resistance by dividing productive labor, which it valued, from reproductive labor, which it found worthless, and privileging men with the “right” to earn subsistence from “their” property.  Women, on the other hand, were made dependent on the earnings of men, and were not compensated for the very real work they were doing.  They were reduced to supporting the working men.

In other words, men became the “breadwinners”, while women became the “housekeepers”.

III. The function of the divide within capitalism

In the previous section, I briefly laid out the evolution of gender roles.  While a crude approximation, it lays out the idea that the unity of production and reproduction gave way to the separation of the two, and that women were saddled with the latter, along with some general reasons for the selection of women for this role.  Additionally, it is possible to begin to see gendered oppression in capitalism as not just an unfortunate remnant of a darker time, but as a foundational contradiction within capitalism.  Sexism is not a vestige, it is a feature.

It is one thing to see the gender binary as inherent to capitalism, but what is its function?  In the last section, I laid out the basic antagonism.  In order to retain control over the means of production, and therefore economic supremacy, it was necessary to pacify the large majority of the population by turning them against one another.  By state-sanctioned violence against women, women were forced into the economically subordinate position of unpaid reproductive labor in support of men’s productive labor.  This set men into the economically privileged position, effectively ‘bribing’ them into complicity with the bourgeoisie.

Antagonisms such as this one are how bourgeois society keeps workers fighting each other instead of challenging the capitalist system; by effectively “layering” exploitation, some parts of the working class benefit from the worse exploitation of the people below them, creating an economic incentive to defend the status quo.  This arrangement is then legitimized by religion, science, and other parts of the societal superstructure to provide an additional social incentive to maintain one’s designated position in society.  Without antagonisms like these, (race is the another major antagonism among the working class) the working class would quickly ascertain the nature of their collective exploitation and turn against the bourgeoisie.

Additionally, as stated before, capitalism only values certain kinds of labor.  Only labor that can increase the value of existing capital is valued by the bourgeoisie.  Labor which only maintains itself, that is, reproductive labor, has no direct value to capital.  Reproductive labor itself can be thought of in two major ways: the daily “maintenance” of existing labor, that is, ensuring the continued capacity of existing laborers to perform labor; and the generational replacement of laborers by way of child-birth.  This labor is necessary for the continued existence of the working class that capital requires, but it is reduced to ‘natural’ work that merits no direct compensation, and it is women as a whole who are expected to perform this labor.

However, this supporting labor does have a cost.  The economic unit of capitalism is not the individual, after all; it is the family as a whole.  Man, wife, and children all require basic subsistence, at a minimum, in order to reproduce the labor power that is valuable to the capitalists.  The wage the traditional bread-winning working man receives must therefore also pay for the continued subsistence of his entire family.  This was not always the case; early industrialization replaced costly men with cheap women and children.  This system could not last, however; the long hours and dangerous conditions threatened the reproduction of labor power by pulling women and children out of the family home and killing them off at an alarming rate.

This exploitation was an attack on the entire class as a whole, but labor-aristocratic leadership convinced many men that their jobs were instead being threatened by the employment of the traditionally subservient women and children of the family unit, rather than the attack by capitalism upon the working class as a whole.  The aforementioned family wage rectified this problem in a way that was suitable to capitalism; the man was put back in his ‘rightful’ place as head of the family, and the wages he earned were now sufficient to ensure that women could return to domestic servitude without worry.  This element of sexism, as that sense of being ‘master of the house’ can be thought of as the replacement for property that would have ensured his control in previous modes of production.

In this way, women’s societal role as the gender responsible for the reproductive labor can be made more specific; it is her role to perform this duty within the family as a unit.  This is where the specific distinction between the role of women and men under capitalism can be brought to light; as stated before, she bears the responsibility of reproducing labor power.  This reproduction of labor power, while indeed being labor itself, is not labor that produces value, and therefore cannot produce surplus value.  Her labor is not governed by this law of value because it must be done regardless of the current demand for labor power, as this labor is necessary for survival.

She is, therefore, not exploited by capital in the strictest sense.  She does produce use-value in the home, but her labor is removed from direct participation in value production (what I have called ‘productive labor’) with regards to capital.  It is in this way that her assigned role is an oppressive one—she is reliant on her husband’s direct participation with value production to acquire the means of subsistence from him.  Obviously, women do perform wage labor in capitalism, often for poor wages or only in part-time employment, but she is saddled with the burden of providing domestic, reproductive labor in addition to the wage labor she performs.  It is the notion that her immediate priority is domestic labor, rather than wage labor, that capitalism takes advantage of in these circumstances.

In addition to this, women’s societal obligation to perform domestic labor, often at the expense of productive wage labor, serves another function within capitalism: its need for unemployment.  Unemployment serves not only to ensure a “reserve” supply of labor power in times of crisis, it also serves to create competition between workers, which gives a strong incentive to workers to accept poorer wages and conditions lest they be replaced by someone else who will.

While this does not cover the function extensively, it is sufficient to see the basics upon which the entire sexist system of oppression is formed.  Of note is that capitalism needs to maintain this system so as to suppress the idea that it is society’s responsibility to provide this service rather than women; however, it is also constantly subjecting the family unit to upheaval. It both requires the family as a unit, but wants no part in sustaining it economically; it needs women to take up the burden of sustaining work rather than make demands of the bourgeoisie to provide these services to her and her family.

The fundamental contradiction, as with all others in any class society, must be papered over with ideology that masks the contradiction so as to prevent consciousness within the exploited class(es) of people.  Gender roles, in this sense, are that ideology that sustains the family as a unit which is necessary for the exploitation by capital, and the ideology that exploits women by chaining them to the drudgery of domestic labor.

IV. How LGBT+ people cross the divide

Once you accept the formation of gender roles as constructs beneficial to capitalism, and understand their basic function within it, it is possible to demonstrate the connection of LGBT+ persons to this construct.  Specifically, LGBT+ persons, in some way or another, directly challenge either the gender roles inherent to capitalism, or the normative sexuality it imposes.

Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and any other persons with non-heteronormative sexualities confront this by defying the traditional gender roles within their relationships.  (They may also defy these roles individually, but this is the more notable point of defiance for our purposes.)  For instance, a relationship between two men necessitates that at least one of them defies the traditional role of producer.  In a relationship between two women, similarly, at least one of them must defy the traditional role of homemaker.  This challenges the necessity of gender roles; if this couple can do well enough for themselves while rejecting the heteronormative gender roles that define the concept of the modern family, how necessary are these roles?  This is a direct blow to the ideology which props up the gendered division of labor by demonstrating that these roles are, effectively optional, which weakens the superstructure that sustains these gender roles against the interests of proletarians (and the proletariat as a whole, for that matter).

Transgender individuals defy gender roles in a similar way, but on the individual level; they reject the role specifically assigned to them.  In their rejection of their assigned gender, they reject the role thrust upon them corresponding to that gender; either the role of producer or the role of reproducer.  Assigned-male-at-birth trans people are damaging to the patriarchal system by rejecting this ‘manly’ role, which throws the dividing line into question.  Similarly, assigned-female-at-birth trans people damage this by ‘usurping’ (which I mean here in the driest possible sense) the role of men in patriarchy.  Non-binary trans folk pose an additional challenge to gender roles; they cannot even be reconciled with the gender binary.  All trans people therefore challenge the ideology surrounding gender roles by discarding their assigned gender role, in part or in whole, and some even discard the notion of gender altogether.

Additionally, asexual individuals challenge gender roles by refusing in some way to participate in the generational reproductive cycle; they do not form relationships and sustain families (and therefore produce future labor power) in the way that the capitalist system requires.  They also reject the ‘compulsory’ nature of normative sexuality, demonstrating that the desire to rear children and/or even the desire for sex at all is not universal.

The common thread that ties all LGBT+ people together is their collective challenge to normative gender roles and sexuality that capitalism relies upon.  While individual LGBT+ people may not challenge these significantly, or only bits of one or the other, collectively, LGBT+ people throw the necessity of these systems and all their associated baggage (appearance, behavior, etc) into question.  This poses a threat to capitalism, which relies upon these systems (among other systems of oppression like racial oppression) to sustain itself.  The most important takeaway is that the source of LGBT+ oppression is the same source as women’s oppression.  These struggles only appear to be disconnected when the class element and systemic analysis of capitalism is omitted.

PART TWO—Rebuttal to the CPGB-ML

With this, the connection between the LGBT+ struggle and the class struggle as a whole is established.  While not an exhaustive proof, the link is clear enough between the two, and we can move on to tackling the CPGB-ML, and by extension, those that hold similar views.  Additionally, while the link between the class struggle and LGBT+ struggle has been established, LGBT+ oppression and its sources have ramifications beyond simple class issues; they intersect with imperialism, racism, and other struggles that must also be vigorously opposed by any communist person or party.

-Considering the previous, in what ways is the CPGB-ML et al deficient in their stances on trans rights/idpol? (fetish of the average worker and class reductionism, rejection of grassroots in favor of broad appeal, failure to apply dialectics in favor of vulgar materialism/idealism, simple strategic failure to ally with oppressed peoples,  etc)

-Conclude: What is the role of both communists and the LGBT community on this front?

I. Marxism is not vulgar materialism

The most notable of the failures of the CPGB-ML is their dismissal of not only identity politics, but of the theory they profess to hold so dear.  They make many references to material reality, materialism, and even make occasional mention of dialectics, but make no effort to utilize dialectics (or even materialism in some cases) in their analysis of LGBT+ issues.  Indeed, analysis of any kind, when it is done, is done in only the crudest possible fashion, without actually engaging with the history of LGBT+ struggles.  No effort is made to engage with the established research nor to perform research of their own; they simply assert that what is commonly accepted as ‘reality’ itself serves the function of a materialist analysis.  But of course, we are not materialists, we are dialectical materialists—our understanding of what is material must be mediated through history.  Without engaging with the history at all, can you arrive at anything other than idealistic, and therefore deficient understandings?  Lewis Hodder writes,

“Members of the party have praised ‘realism’, assuming that reference to what is ‘real’, ie material, fulfils the function of negation and of dialectical materialism itself. Yet, this does not come up against anything that exists but merely seeks to replicate it and keep things as they are; in assuming that it has established a natural history, it looks at the end product of the development of material conditions within capitalism and seeks to maintain it on the pretence of fighting idealism and supposes that it has established a positivist science out of dialectical materialism.”

In essence, the party has reduced Marxism to vulgar materialism.  Assumptions are not grounded in research, they do not perform any of their own.  They do not contemplate and expose the contradictions withing LGBT+ struggles, there are simply assumed to be none of note.  Marxist theory alone does not provide answers to these questions; it is only a tool for analysis.  Without researching the contradictions of capitalism, Marx himself would have never been able to write Capital; it was only through reckoning with the development of capitalism through the lens of dialectical materialism that he was able to discern its workings and offer an insightful analysis of it.

For example, in “The reactionary nightmare of gender fluidity,” the speaker for the CPGB-ML says,

“Are ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ synonyms? Well they are synonyms, but a certain group of academics in the seventies in the United States decided that they weren’t synonyms. They were going to use ‘gender’ in their own way; they were going to use ‘gender’ to mean the social construct of behaviour surrounding what was expected of the biological differentiation among human beings (men and women).

But biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing. It doesn’t just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world.”

This is not a slip-up or simple glossing over of facts; this is a naked assertion that sex is ‘biological differentiation’, whatever that is supposed to mean, without justification.  Furthermore, is there any reason we ought not to differentiate between biology and behavior?  That this is ridiculous to them insists they hold that sex and gender are unified, that is, that biology and gender (along with all the expected behaviors that entails) are inextricably linked.  A cursory search of the existing research, or even the relevant historical science, would reveal that this is not only untrue, but a relatively new concept, as I demonstrated near the beginning of this piece.

The CPGB-ML cannot move past this “common sense” understanding of sexuality and gender.  The belief that men and women are immutable biological categories, that their expected behaviors are direct products of the differences between these categories; these are simply elevated to principle.  However, we cannot simply assert that this is true; we must, as has been repeatedly stated, engage with the material through theory.  They dismiss the research off-hand as the product of some bourgeois academics, and conduct none of their own.  That this is pure arrogant idealism is not merely an insult being slung at the party: they openly reject the notion of even considering the distinction between sex and gender.

As Marxists, we cannot dismiss things out of hand and make assertions in place of hard research and study.  Having read Marx alone does not empower us to speak on specific issues; again, Marxism is simply a lens through which to examine material reality and construct a coherent narrative.  Without doing that examination, you cannot hope to arrive at a useful, much less accurate understanding of reality.  The CPGB-ML makes this clear; by refusing to engage in this careful analysis, they end up siding with evangelicals in their conception of LGBT+ people!  Though we get the benefit of a through-gritted-teeth acknowledgment, they refuse to stand with us; we are to be contented with “equal rights” as a natural consequence of socialism.  One need only to refer to Cuba or the Soviet Union to understand how “natural” LGBT+ rights are under socialism.  These rights must be actively campaigned for by challenging the institutions that withhold them, and the CPGB-ML flatly refuses to do so.

II. The obsession with the ‘average worker’

There is also a very class reductionist element at play within the party.  Several articles devote no small amount of time dismissing issues of identity in favor of a broad-base appeal to the working class as a whole.  Only strictly class issues are given much attention, as it is asserted that the working class can only be appealed to on the basis that “an injury to one is an injury to all.”  One need only consider history to see that this approach has never worked; this approach does not challenge the divisions present in society, and it is obvious to see that this approach never can.  Only when the people have been connected to the broader working class through their own experience can they understand their place within it and begin to develop a class consciousness; without making this connection from their place within society to the class struggle first, they will not see themselves as part of the class as a whole.

Even the CPGB-ML’s own iconography represents this, to a degree: the hammer, representing the urban industrial worker, and the sickle, representing the rural peasantry.  When Lenin appealed to the peasantry, did he simply appeal to them as workers?  Did he do this for the industrial workers in the same way?  He did not; he appealed to them by connecting their respective grievances to the greater struggle against capitalism.  This is the important part; one must actually acknowledge the differences within the working class and engage with these particulars before the working class can be united.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to building consciousness.  People do not see themselves as in the same boat as others; capitalism has trained them not to.  It is true that the class struggle is the critical struggle that we must all actively participate in, however, this struggle takes on a variety of forms that must be shown to be just reflections of the class struggle.  Declarations do not convince people, demonstrations do.

Their insistence that the ‘average worker’ will reject them if they were to support trans people is also a puzzling stance to take.  Are we to believe that communist movements are built by simply appealing to the sensibilities of the working class?  Are we chasing votes or are we building a revolution?  What are we doing if not challenging the misconceptions that keep us in servitude?  By working to mirror this caricature of the working class as closely as possible, they just replicate the most reactionary elements within their own party.  That this caricature is ultimately just a vision of what they think the working class ought to be, is evident when you consider how consistently this vision of the working class lines up perfectly with their unwillingness to engage with LGBT+ struggles and their broad-appeal rejection of grassroots practice.  Their supposedly objective vision of society ordains them as the vanguard party; that the working class will come to them is treated as a given.

III. The intersection of LGBT+ and other oppressive systems

Capitalist nations have not contented themselves with the exploitation of their own people.  Imperialism, often called the highest stage of capitalism, has its fingers around the entire globe.  Where it may use a softer grip in the mother country, in its colonies and semi-colonies, brutal exploitation generates super-profits which are used to provide luxury commodities for the homeland.  Oppression is intense in these subjugated nations, and what would be considered unthinkable brutality here is the norm there.  In addition, racial oppression divides even the working class of the mother country.  In the United States, for example, African slaves were brutally exploited, along with the indigenous peoples in the “New World”, in order to serve the white settler-colonial nation; an exploitative relationship that continues largely unabated to this very day.  In these cases, the imperialist power imposes its own norms upon the native populace, destroying their own norms and culture.  Criminalizing “deviant” behavior paves the way for the imperialists’ oppressive systems by force.

These peoples are subjected to the imperialist power’s standards of beauty and behavior, the imperialist power’s religion is imposed upon them, and all attempts by the colonized peoples to retain their own sense of identity is savagely repressed with state-sanctioned violence.  This happens not only abroad, but at home, where racial minorities are subjected to white standards.  It hardly takes any time to find an example of, for instance, a black woman’s womanhood being questioned on spurious grounds.  Examples of repression of indigenous peoples’ familial structures, sexual practices, gender expressions, and so on are commonplace.  The Indian hijra under British imperialism, homosexuality of some indigenous American peoples under Spain’s genocidal practices—take even the example of Caster Semenya for a contemporary example of racialized misogyny.

Deviations by non-white people in the imperialist powers of today from Eurocentric ideals about gender and sexuality are not tolerated.  While the superficial justifications may vary in any case (religious objections and conflicts abound), the result is that the gender roles and compulsory heteronormative sexuality under capitalist society is imposed upon the colonized peoples—often violently, especially in the Third World.  The CPGB-ML has asserted that the 

“western imperialist bourgeoisie has suddenly discovered and embraced gay and transgender rights, which only yesterday it was vigorously opposing… the advantage to the bourgeoisie of its newly-discovered enthusiasm for gay rights is that it can use them to castigate oppressed countries who stick to traditional religious prejudices...”

This preposterous statement implies that they have somehow failed to notice that the western imperialist bourgeoisie has far more often castigated oppressed countries for sticking to traditional sexual and gendered practices that defy heteronormative gender roles and sexuality.  That Saudi Arabia is spared our unholy gay bourgeois wrath has everything to do with Saudi Arabia’s ruling class generally co-operating with the imperialist United States and nothing to do with “enthusiasm for gay rights” the bourgeois has supposedly developed over the last 40 years.  This enthusiasm does not exist; it is an illusion that is created by elevating the preconceived notion of LGBT+ rights as “bourgeois ideology” into a principle, and applying that to their analysis of capitalism and imperialism.  This blinds the party to the very real oppression abroad and how it compounds with racial oppression at home, a blindness that could be alleviated by engaging critically with the “material reality” that they appeal to so often.

This serves to show that a rejection of identity wholesale in favor of crude, purist notions of class inevitably produces a deficient analysis of capitalism and imperialism.  There is not just ‘the working class’, it is a diverse group whose members face differing kinds of oppression.  This oppression still comes from capitalism itself, which liberal identity politics does not recognize; however, the oppression is directed along lines of identity, which the CPGB-ML does not acknowledge with respect to LGBT+ rights.

IV. Strategic failures as a result of bad theory

The preceding sections provide examples of the deficiency of the CPGB-ML’s stances.  These stances, being built on shaky, idealistic foundations, are divorced from the theory that is foundational to Marxism-Leninism; they do not provide accurate assessments of the struggles they speak authoritatively about.  Beyond this, these stances also affect the strategy the party employs in its efforts to build class consciousness, and by extension, revolution.

I have already touched on the first strategic failure; that is, the refusal to go grassroots in favor of a broad-base approach.  By this, I mean that the party restricts themselves to appealing only to the working class as a whole.  I have already demonstrated the problem here, as well; workers must be engaged with on issues specific to them in order to bring them into the movement.  People form their understanding with the conditions in which they live, in combination with the ideology they hold.  The ideology they hold, by default, is typically bourgeois ideology in nature; this ideology must be challenged.  In this respect, the party’s stance on identity politics is correct: identity politics as an ideology is bourgeois in nature.  The problem with their approach to identity politics is that they also reject the underlying conditions which produces it, that is to say, they reject not only the ideology which shapes identity politics but the grievances of the people who ‘practice’ it.

The obvious problem here is that the grievances of these people are very real grievances.  The CPGB-ML’s rejection of these grievances stems from their inability or unwillingness to engage with the grievances directly; that is, they do not engage in any kind of analysis of the issues plaguing groups that practice identity politics.  Whether this is because of prejudice or ignorance, it is hard to say, and frankly kind of irrelevant.

However, to repeat: their rejection of the ideology behind identity politics is valid.  Their fault comes from only engaging with the superficial ideology and none of the material conditions underlying it.  While ‘idpol-ers’ hold both the ideology and grievances as legitimate, and the CPGB-ML denies the legitimacy of both, the truth is that the underlying conditions are valid (as I demonstrated to some degree in Part One), while the ideology is rotten.  By exposing the contradictions in the ideology, it would be reveal the deficiency of omitting the class element; in returning the class element to the struggles, these struggles are not denied, but justified and supported in the larger context of class struggle under capitalism.

It is this kind of dismissal that characterizes the entire CPGB-ML’s approach to building socialism.  By rejecting the opportunity to engage with the various underlying circumstances of workers directly, the opportunity to connect their distinct struggles to the larger class struggle is lost.  This direct engagement cannot be skipped over, and it cannot be done in broad strokes.  Whether it be challenging identity politics, or convincing white and black workers to unite as a class, without going to these people directly, engaging with their struggles, and connecting these struggles to one another by way of including the class element, the movement will never be able to take place.  When you engage in this broad strokes approach and refuse to get down and “do the dirty work” as it were, you fail to bring about the class consciousness required for revolution.

V. A brief critique of identity politics

This all being said, the last elephant in the room is identity politics itself.  I will specifically critique it on the LGBT+ angle, as it is more relevant to the piece.  However, the arguments here will more or less hold for any other struggle being carried out through the lens of bourgeois identity politics.

As Lewis Hodder writes in “Inside the last days of the CPGB-ML”, the problem with identity politics is that:

“This is the failure of identity politics, that the immediacy of identity is elevated into a principle; it is without concrete content and remains indeterminate, along with all of the contradictions that manifest itself from taking either race or gender as a self-evident apparition and the defining factor of oppression.”

This is to say, the problem with identity politics is not the validity of the underlying identities, which the CPGB-ML rejects as well.  The problem is that this “elevation” of identity into a principle is without justification.  This is where the CPGB-ML comes close to getting it right, in saying that it is idealism; liberal identity politics is idealistic.  Furthermore, this elevation of identity into principle also obscures the real source of oppression—bourgeois society’s need to maintain oppressive structures to maintain capitalism—by asserting that the identity itself is the crux of oppression.  It is this assertion that leads liberal identity politics down the road of reformism: they do not see their oppression as an inherent contradiction of the system, which does not compel them to challenge that system.

Instead, they content themselves with concessions, and long, arduous struggle to acquire them.  One of these concessions is that bourgeois members of these oppressed identities are given a modicum of power.  The problem of liberal identity politics, then, becomes this: the drive to overthrow the system is suppressed in favor of requesting limited participation in the system.  This is similar to the liberal clamor for “female CEOs”, in which success within the oppressive system is held up as a virtue.  It is clear to us that no amount of female CEOs or gay representatives will fix the true problem, but as identity politics can only associate identity with oppression directly, success in the system is treated as proof that the system is no longer (as) oppressive.  Of course, these bourgeois LGBT+ people are economically removed from the proletarian struggle; their economic interests, which require them to exploit the labor of the proletariat, suppress their identification with their proletarian LGBT+ fellows.

This granting of certain oppressed peoples the “privilege” of becoming an exploiter themselves gives them this economic incentive to oppose revolution, and content themselves with slow, marginal legal reforms, so as to not challenge their economic supremacy.  They are still LGBT+ themselves, no doubt: the problem is that by placing them in an economic position that relies on the exploitative system, they come to justify the exploitative system, and betray the best interests of the LGBT+ community as a whole.  Of course this is not a problem for capitalism: it is quite handy to have members of an oppressed group justify the system that keeps them oppressed in the first place.

Thus, our rejection of identity politics has to be along these lines: we must insist on the class element being of primary consideration in relation to our individual struggles, we must insist on the overthrow of the system and never content ourselves with meager reforms, and finally, we must never allow bourgeois members of our own communities to divert us from the path of revolution in order to prop up their own exploitative position.  We should see identity politics as a problem, to be sure; but it should also be an opportunity to connect disparate struggles to the larger struggle of capitalist class society, and by engaging with the underlying conditions unique to these various identities, we can create for them meaningful connection to that larger struggle.  Only through this engagement can we truly uncouple LGBT+ oppression, as well as all other oppressive systems, from opportunist tendencies within our movements and truly unite to create a society in which oppression can finally be ended.

CONCLUSION

In this essay, I have provided my justification for LGBT+ struggles as class struggles, and spoken of the deficiency of the approach of the CPGB-ML with regards to these struggles.  It is my hope that with this essay, I have demonstrated the need for communists to connect to the struggles of people directly; that communists must stand with oppressed people actively, and not merely passively accept them; that communists have a duty to engage with the scientific aspects of our ideology, and not merely the theoretical abstract aspects; and finally, that as communists, we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent, and must always subject ourselves to criticism, so that we never fall into the trap of assuming that the revolution will come to us.  It will only come when people can personally connect to the wider struggle, and to this end, it is our duty to stand with all oppressed peoples, to vigorously defend their struggles, and to bring their plight to the forefront of any action we take.  In this way only can we build the trust needed for the formation of a revolutionary proletariat, and finally bring about the overthrow of the system that exploits us all.

References

 1. Excerpt of a speech given by (person name) at the 8th Congress; this section about why gay rights is not a class issue according to the CPGB-ML. https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2019/04/20/news/why-gay-rights-is-not-a-class-issue/

 2. Excerpt of a speech given by (person name) at the 8th Congress; this excerpt about transgender people and gender fluidity https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2019/03/23/news/the-reactionary-nightmare-of-gender-fluidity/

 3. Excerpt of a speech given by (person name) at the 8th Congress; this excerpt about how “identity politics” supposedly divides the working class https://www.cpgb-ml.org/2018/12/07/news/the-only-thing-that-unites-us-is-class/

CPGB-ML Timeline

 1. Saturday 3 July 2004 – Party founded at Saklatvala Hall in Southall.  After expulsion from the Socialist Labour Party run by Arthur Scargill over clashes between the social-democrat wing and the Marxist-Leninist wing, some ex-SLP members create the CPGB-ML, citing the SLP’s support for the “imperialist Labour party” as one of the chief reasons for creating the new party.

 2. Monday 26 February 2018 – Red Fightback, another Marxist-Leninist organization in Great Britain, posts an article detailing their stance on LGBT oppression in capitalism.

 3. Early 2018 – Lewis Hodder, among others in the CPGB-ML, encounter resistance by the Central Committee regarding transphobia and homophobia within the party. Hodder is prohibited from attending the 8th Congress (see September entry, below)

 4. 4 June 2018 – CPGB-ML Twitter account links the above Red Fightback article, receiving a great deal of backlash in the replies.

 5. July-August 2018 – Hodder begins work on an essay attempting to “set a baseline of theory that would allow these problems [on trans/homophobia and other reactionary sentiments] to be overcome,” that would not be finished until April of the following year.

 6. September 2018 – CPGB-ML holds their 8th Congress, stating “five months of discussions and inner-party debate” in preparation, and that “Motions were submitted from around the country on housing, education, identity politics, racism, employment rights and a great many other issues...”

 7. CPGB-ML passes Motion 8 (see References document for full details) during their 8th Congress, enacting a rule that makes any “propagation of identity politics” grounds for expulsion from the CPGB-ML.

 8. Party founder and chair Harpal Brar steps down after 14 years, replaced by Ella Rule. Zane Carpenter and Joti Brar (daughter of Harpal Brar) elected as vice-chairs.

 9. October-December 2018 – Transcriptions of speeches given at the 8th Congress are posted in quick succession, all centering around identity politics and making frequent reference to LGBT rights.

 10. December 2018 – An article is posted briefly covering some changes to the party’s tactics and organization; of note, membership purges are admitted to in the then recent past.

 11. 29 April 2019 – Lewis Hodder (see above), now former CPGB-ML member, posts an essay entitled “Inside the last days of the CPGB-ML” on Ebb Magazine, citing clashes with the CPGB-ML Central Committee that resulted in his barring from the 8th Congress, and the resultant fallout from inter-party fighting in the middle of 2018.

This timeline is not totally complete: some articles and videos that were relevant to this have been deleted or are no longer available due to missing archives.  However, it serves to show the relatively brief, intense period of vicious transphobia and homophobia by the party—the developments and later purges of the part occur over the course of less than a year.

[rootfauna]

A Handmaiden’s Tale. Specifically, Mine.

I’e been debating on whether or not to make this post for a while now, and I’ve decided that the benefits of saying my piece outweigh any hate I’ll get for this. It’s really long but I have no more fucks to give. 

I am so, so, sick of the trend in radical feminism of calling women who aren’t radical feminists “cocksuckers” “wastes of time” “dick riders” “sellouts” “cowards” and “handmaidens”. Anti feminist women and liberal feminist women can be incredibly annoying and have made me want to put my head through a wall, and I honestly can’t blame anyone for making a snide remark about them here or there. But I absolutely cannot wrap my mind around the fact that a group of women who supposedly A) understands the misogyny of using a woman’s (real of hypothetical) sexual interactions with a man as an insult against her, B) acknowledges the realities of female socialization in a patriarchal society and C) understands the potential dangerous outcomes of a woman speaking up against misogyny, can go around unabashedly talking about women this way. Every time I scroll through my dash I’ll come across at least one post lamenting how young girls are indoctrinated into believing their worth lies in their beauty, femininity, and (hetero)sexuality. Why then, do I see so much vitriol directed at the ones who believed it? 

The last time I spoke about this I was accused of ‘making it all about myself’ because I shared a snippet of my personal experience. Well, I’m about to share more than a snippet. Yet this isn’t about me, and I will be the first one to tell you that I am nowhere near unique in this sense. So I guess this is actually the experience of thousands and thousands of women, this is just how it happened to me:

To start with, y’all need to understand where I grew up. If the ‘y’all’ wasn’t a big enough clue, I grew up in bumfuck nowhere USA. Here’s another fact that’s vital to my story: I was born in 1991. That fact, coupled with my geographic location, meant that when I started school in 1996, corporal punishment was still legal (to be carried out by the principal) and up until around that time my mother could still legally sign documents as “mrs” *insert my father’s name*. 

Growing up in this environment meant that gender roles were highly enforced around me and that at an early age I saw deviance from them met with hatred and scorn. I could name plenty of examples, but really, haven’t we all seen that? Even the respectable women who dared not be housewives never rose to a more prominent position than a teacher, bank clerk, or selling Mary Kay. Before the age of about 10 I have absolutely no memory of seeing a woman in a position of skill and power beyond these things except for Terry Irwin on tv. It might be noted that I grew up wanting to be a zookeeper. I don’t remember the first time I heard the word “feminist” but from my earliest recollection it was not a good word. Then, as today in my neck of the woods, “feminist” is an insult. I can remember sitting in the back seat of the car listening to my father and his friend ranting about something they heard on the radio about how “the feminists” (word spat out like tobacco juice) were ruining something or other. It was clear to me that whatever these feminists were, they were bad. 

Things really kicked into gear once I got into middle school. What had been a vague concept in the back of my mind was now pulled to the front of the classroom. I distinctly remember sitting in 7th grade biology and learning about the inherent differences between male and female brains. The teacher explained how our brains were wired differently, and that male brains were designed so that logical and analytical thought came naturally to them, but expressing emotion and communicating did not. This, the teacher said, is why men often erupt into fits of anger rather than say how they feel. On the other hand, female brains were designed to have ease of communication, and to be more aware of our own emotions and those of others. They were not designed for quick, logical, rational thinking. Don’t get me wrong; it was never taught to me that women were incapable of logical, rational, thinking, just that we were biologically at a disadvantage to men in that regard. I tried (like other girls in the class) to have some pride in my lady-brain. I’m wired to be better at something than a boy! Ha! Though it was around this time I began to shift my focus away from scientific pursuits and towards the arts. 7th grade was also the beginning of outright public sexual harassment that no adult seemed to give a shit about. There was “thong Thursday”, for example. We 12-13 year old girls were encouraged by the boys to wear thongs and lean over so that they could see the tops of them, or to wear our jeans low enough for them to peek over. This happened openly in the halls, but never once addressed by the adults. And woe to any girl who spoke out about it. That much feared “feminist!” accusation could be hurled at her, and she’d be publicly humiliated and mocked, and no one would dare help her lest they be feminist by association. There was also ‘grab-ass Wednesday’ which makes absolutely no sense but is exactly what you’re thinking. 

The official school lesson on male and female brains resurfaced again, this time in 10th grade sociology class. This time in addition to the physical differences in the brains, we learned about inherent differences in behavior and societal roles. It was honestly something taken straight from some MRA’s drivel; men evolved to be the Strong Hunter Protector of the species, brain different, this why big words make man ANGRY he hit you because his brain can’t make his mouth talk feelings he want to BREED. Woman want BABY lots of emotions need man to protec blah blah blah. To us at this point, all of this was objective fact. Also at this point, the effects and impact of female socialization were starting to become disgustingly apparent. Around this time the security officer at the school was fired for ‘having sex’ with a fourteen year old freshman. It was so SCANDALOUS because...what a SLUT! It would not occur to me until YEARS later that maybe sex between a 14 year old girl and the adult male security officer hired to protect her was...uh, rape. As high school continued, so did the development of our female anti-feminism. I’ve seen radfems on here discuss how men are socialized to think that their thoughts and emotions are objective fact, but I’ve never seen it pointed out that women are socialized to believe so, too. As interactions with boys became more frequent their attention became more and more prized. When a boy said “you’re beautiful” or “you’re not like the other girls” or “you’re smart” it was seen as a pure and shining compliment, a shining nugget of truth. If a girl said the same thing? You never knew, she could just be two-faced, she would change her mind in a matter of seconds, or just be on her period. Of course, we began to strive to receive more compliments from boys because what teenager DOESN’T want to be respected and valued by their peers? 

By the end of high school several of my peers were married and/or had a baby already. I had intended to go to school for journalism, but in a sudden fit of either teenage rebellion or wisdom, I took the plunge into working with animals. This saw me moving about a thousand miles away from my home town, my parents, friends, and all forms of social support. As it turns out, animal training and handling, particularly dog training and handling, is an incredibly male dominated field. Even compared to my previous life experience, it was extremely misogynistic. I found myself working long shifts at night, often with only male coworkers who were near universally older, larger, and stronger than I was. Here, I was expected to laugh it off when one of them said that if the world were about to end, the first thing he’d do was rape me. Or when my boss joked about raping me. Or when one of them (more or less out of nowhere) said that he didn’t think there would ever be a female president because “when I think “president” I think “man””. I did what I was supposed to do and took some satisfaction in their approval despite my first, suppressed, twinge of discomfort. In a strange city, in a strange area of the country, sleeping during the day and working long hours, I had little elsewhere to look for friendship and social interaction. So I made friends. Long night shifts with no one else to talk to and little else to do will do that to people. Of course, I wasn’t the ONLY woman at my place of work. I was friendly with the other women but the lifelong effects of being socialized to view women as inferior kept any of us from growing too close to each other. After all, despite growing up elsewhere they had similar upbringings. When they weren’t present the men openly chatted about who they thought the woman had slept with, how smelly her vagina must be, what her nipples probably looked like, and I held my tongue still under the delusion that if I was Good and Not Like the Other Girls, they wouldn’t speak like that about me behind my back. Feminism was only mentioned to mock women, or, more importantly, to bring up how the the country was sexist against men. The men lamented about how “in this country a man can’t be raped I guess” and “female special privileges” and “the DRAFT” and I believed them, because I didn’t have much of a reason or incentive not to. Women were viewed and treated as walking cries of rape unless they laughed when groped. 

I called one of these male friends one night, in tears. My kitten, a tiny little thing named Ginkgo, had escaped from my apartment and I pleaded with him to help me search for her. He came over and we searched in vain for her. I was heartbroken, sobbing, and desperate for comfort and when the hug I was given became lustful I tried to refuse. He argued that I had woken him up in the middle of the night to come all the way to my home to look for a lost kitten; I owed it to him. That it wasn’t fair for me to refuse him and that it was selfish of me to expect compassion and company for nothing in return. And at that time in my life, I believed him. It was only fair. Afterwards, alone in my apartment, I was confronted with the reality that the only reason anyone would ever show me compassion, love, or kindness was because I was female and therefore potential sex. At the time, I was beginning to realize I was asexual (though it would be many years before I had a word for it). It was like I had been shown that my worth, my worthiness of love and life, and all my achievements were housed in my sensuality and sexuality. And I didn’t posses either. Dark times, I tell ya. Of course, there was no chance of me seeking sympathy from any female friends or acquaintances for what took place. Years later when a man in a bar shoved his finger inside me and I smashed a beer mug over his head I was berated by my female companions for overreacting and ruining the night. Further blows to any sense of being anything other than “woman” came in the form, ironically, of my achievements. I excelled at dog handling, particularly scent detection and received many an award for it, each time being told by my male peers that the only reason I received it was because I was a woman. I took my awards with a pinch of shame, believing I had taken it from a more deserving man. 

 It was around this time I first dipped my toes in the shallow end of feminism. I got a Tumblr! I was about 23. The internet wasn’t too big a thing when I was growing up and I got my first social media account when I was 17, the year I moved out. Until I logged onto the blue hell site, I didn’t use the internet outside of facebook (with only my irl friends there to form an echo chamber) and looking up definitions of words. Now, for the first time, I discovered that feminism wasn’t taboo everywhere. Fascinating! Of course, the “feminism” I found was pretty much identical to the patriarchal world I lived in, just with more lipstick. But it was a step. Secret radfem blog? Shit, I had a secret libfem blog and was still terrified of being found out by people I knew. I had good reason, too. When I tried to, very tentatively, voice some opinions that were not male-approved, I was met with swift and immediate backlash. I mentioned to a male coworker that I didn’t want children, which ended with him screaming at me to go out and have a hysterectomy right now if I really didn’t want any because I was being stupid and of course I wasn’t serious otherwise I’d just rip my uterus out. Or when I voiced concern over that one politician that said women should be forced to deliver stillbirths naturally because that’s what happened on his farm and was publicly berated for being a crybaby and a little girl, freaking out over ‘one weird fluke’. Still, I grew more and more interested in feminism. I spent a year deeeep in the libbiest-of libfem glitter-choked hells until one fateful day: I saw a study that proved there was no such thing as brainsex. 

My entire perception of reality was irreparably shattered. Over the course of a few days, I was forced to realize that I had been lied to my entire life. I had been lied to by my teachers and the adults in my life as a kid, I was forced to realize how deeply sexist and inappropriate the boys at schools were being, that I was taught in school to excuse male violence as not their fault, that no one ever owed anyone sex, that what my coworkers and ‘friends’ were saying was blatantly false and not ok, that I was just as capable of pursuing a scientific field as a man, to realize just how much the most important people in my life really hated me. And I was forced to confront the fact that I had backed myself into a corner, cut off any escape routes, and that I relied on the acceptance of these men for my safety and job security. That made the next few years......uncomfortable. And yet, bit by bit, little by little, I’ve pulled myself away from that world and set up a new life for myself. I’ve said goodbye to a lot of people. I’ve hurt a lot. I’ve cringed a lot. The antifeminist keyboard smashing seen on radfem posts is something I could have (and probably would have) typed myself back then, safe in the conviction that I was right. 

“No one held a gun to your head and forced you to be an antifeminist” I’ve been told. That’s true, I guess. At nine, after riding my bike to the one small library in town I could have checked out a book by Dworkin (whom I’d never heard of) from the feminist section (which may or may not have existed) instead of Animorphs. I could have walked around shouting “hey, anyone want to be a feminist so I can see how it’s done?” to try and find someone to look up to. I could have, upon getting internet in my late teens, immediately googled “how to be a feminist”, but I didn’t so my bad. Certainly there were girls who grew up in similar circumstances who were always feminists, and certainly there are women who grew up with outlets for feminism that are antifeminist, but I feel my story is a much more common one and in the end at least I made it. I think most radfems have had a libfem phase and I think most of us would cringe at it, but in so many ways I’m grateful for it. Not only did it introduce me to the movement that would change my life, but it was inviting and welcoming. I cannot, and DO NOT want to imagine what would have happened if, seeking to find voice for my discomfort, I had come across radical feminism first and saw the words that were beginning to cut so deeply echoed by the women who claimed to be for women. Cocksucker. Waste of time. Stupid. Coward. Being told I ‘lapped it all up’. The thought of it really makes me uncomfortable, and I think the only message it all would have sent was “Your entire world is against you and hates you but also you wanted it and it’s your fault.”. 

I see radfems speak often about non western women and how they face and view sexism. It’s quite universally accepted that non western women are acutely aware of biological sex and wouldn’t stand for this gemgender floridesexual nonsense and that’s lauded as a sort of....kinship I guess. When I see radfems speak about non western women in this way, I feel they have a sense of kinship with them, like they’re one of the radfem crowd. I wonder, however, what the women who grew up and lived in those environments would really think about everything radical feminism stands for? Surely some would agree completely, but how often do you see women in these situations agree that rape is sometimes (or always) the girl’s fault? Or that women should not be educated? Are they still our sisters, or cock sucking cowards? And is the extension of sisterhood dependent on their hypothetical ability to, if they hold these beliefs, listen to what feminists have to say and change their minds to agree? Let’s say the woman in your gifsets is presented with these resources and never changes her mind. What then? Even still I've seen it said that anti feminist women will never change so there’s no point in trying. I see libfems pointing to non western cultures with ‘other’ genders and saying ‘see? see? THEY agree with me! They’d agree with liberal feminism!’ and I see radfems pointing to non western women and saying ‘see? see? THEY agree with me! They’d agree with radical feminism!’ and I can’t help but see these cultures and women within them being pressed into an ideal of one argument or the other purely for internet posturing. 

I’m very disheartened to see the movement which once seemed so academic and helpful to me seeming to become a ‘cool girls’ club. Sisterhood, compassion, and help, but only for women who think the way we do. Others are there to be mocked. It’s eerily similar to the way we laughed at the ‘other’ girls in high school, completely full of ourselves and thinking we were so much better. 

When I think of anti feminist women, I see the little girl being told men were prone to violence instead of talking because that’s how they were built, I see the girl being called a whore for being raped by someone she was told to trust, and I see the women pitted against each other, who have never had a feminist role model, and the girls who harbor a strange feeling of discontent and isolation they can’t articulate. I don’t see wastes of time. 

If you’re still reading, thank you. 

[paleorecipecookbook]

Life Expectancy in the U.S.: Why the Numbers Are Falling

As you’d imagine, year-over-year gains in this calculation are the goal and are indicative of a healthy society. Stagnations are cause for concern, while declines are, to put it mildly, alarming. Falling national numbers can signal the deterioration of a country’s healthcare infrastructure, especially in the quality of healthcare services it provides its citizens.

To my mind, this is exactly what’s happening in America today. Although life expectancy in the U.S. was on an upward march for decades, preliminary data for 2017 suggests the average lifespan in the United States dropped for the third year in a row. The only other time life expectancy decreased three consecutive years was in the late 1910s, and that was due to the worst flu outbreak in recorded history.

So why is it on the decline today, 100 years later? Because chronic disease is now the biggest threat to our longevity, and because conventional medicine has failed to slow this epidemic. But there is good news: a Functional Medicine approach to health and healthcare, influenced by an ancestral perspective, can turn the tide.

The last time life expectancy in the U.S. fell for the third consecutive year, it was due to the worst flu outbreak in recorded history. Why are the numbers falling today? Check out this article to find out. #healthylifestyle #functionalmedicine #kresserinstitute

What the Latest Statistics Say about Life Expectancy in the U.S.

Based on early data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. death rate is up and life expectancy is down—again. The disturbing trend began in 2015, when the average overall life expectancy in the U.S. dropped from 78.9 years of age to 78.7. In 2016, it fell to 78.6. (1, 2, 3)

Before you dismiss the decrease as small and insignificant, consider this: the United States now has the lowest life expectancy levels among high-income developed countries, including Western Europe, Australia, and Japan. To illustrate the gravity further, if somehow we could freeze the life expectancy calculations in these other countries and increase our numbers at the rate we did pre-2015 when the downward slide began, it would take American men 16 years just to match the average of the other populations. American women would need a whopping 18 years. (4)

But let’s get back to why statisticians predict a continued downturn. In addition to increases in deaths from “diseases of despair” (drug abuse, fueled largely by opioids, alcoholism, and suicide), they’re seeing significant, even dramatic, increases in death from chronic diseases, including:

Heart disease (still the leading cause of death in the United States)

Stroke

Alzheimer’s disease

Diabetes

Seven of the current top 10 causes of death are chronic diseases. The same stat applies to number of deaths as well: chronic disease is responsible for seven out of 10 deaths each year.

It now appears the onset of chronic illness is earlier than it once was, and chronic disease is even on the rise in children, with the rate doubling between 1994 and 2006. (Sadly, there has been a sharp increase in the number of kids and teens diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, once rare among children—probably due to the rise in obesity among this group.)  (5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

Chronic Disease: The Country’s Big Challenge

We didn’t just arrive at a three-year slump overnight.

A major 2014 study sounded the alarm bells. (10) It pointed out that not only was chronic disease on the rise, but so too was the number of older Americans living with multiple chronic conditions—a shocking four out of five people. It also showed that the more ailments a person has after retirement age, the shorter their lifespan and the nation’s overall lifespan.

Researchers determined that, on average, a person’s life expectancy at age 67 decreases 1.8 years for each additional chronic disease they have, ranging from 0.4 fewer years with the first condition up to 2.6 fewer years with the sixth diagnosis. They also found that the outlook is much worse for those with certain diseases, especially Alzheimer’s, incidences of which are only climbing. According to the study’s lead author:

The balancing act needed to care for all of those conditions is complicated ... Our system is not set up to care for people with so many different illnesses … It is becoming very clear that preventing the development of additional chronic conditions in the elderly could be the only way to continue to improve life expectancy. (11)

I have to guess that many people didn’t hear the red alert go off when this study was released because the conventional approach to medicine remains deeply anchored in this country—and millions of patients believe this approach to healthcare is effectively treating their chronic disease.

It’s not.

There’s a Simple Answer—for You and the Nation

What these researchers said in 2014 is what I’ve been saying for years: conventional medicine can’t and will never solve chronic disease. We need to do things differently.

And here’s another compelling fact to motivate us all: while overall life expectancy is an important measure of a nation’s well-being, it’s only one assessment. The study findings shared here highlight the fact that we’re not just living shorter lives; we’re also living sicker lives. Of the 78 years we can expect to live, most of us only get to enjoy 67.7 of them free of illness and disability. In Europe, this statistic is called Healthy Life Years, or HLY. America’s HLY number has only risen 2.4 years since 1990. (12, 13)

Here’s where Functional Medicine comes in. It’s the answer to increasing both our overall life expectancy and our HLY expectancy. But to understand why it works, you first need to understand the main reasons why the current model is failing us all.

Why Conventional Medicine Can’t Heal Chronic Disease

Big Reason 1. It’s the Wrong Medical Paradigm

Conventional medicine evolved during a time when acute (sudden onset, as opposed to slow-developing) infectious diseases were the leading causes of death, like a deadly flu outbreak. Most other problems that brought people to the doctor were also acute, like appendicitis. Treatment in these cases was relatively simple: the patient developed pneumonia, went to see the doctor, received an antibiotic (once they were invented), and either got well or died. One problem, one doctor, one treatment.

As we’ve established, things today aren’t that straightforward. The average patient sees the doctor for one or more chronic issues, which are difficult to manage, expensive to treat, require more than one physician, and typically last a lifetime. They don’t lend themselves to the “one problem, one doctor, one treatment” approach of the past.

It’s the application of the conventional medical paradigm to the modern problem of chronic disease that’s gotten us into our current conundrum. It’s led to a system that emphasizes suppressing symptoms with drugs (and sometimes surgery and an endless cycle of “procedures”), rather than addressing the underlying cause of illness.

This is not the way to reverse or prevent chronic disease, more than 85 percent of which is caused by environmental factors like diet, behavior, and lifestyle. (14) More specifically, chronic disease is the direct result of a mismatch between our genes and biology on one hand and the modern environment on the other.

Big Reason 2. It’s the Wrong Delivery Model

How care is delivered is also a huge problem. The system isn’t structured to support the most important interventions.

As I mentioned above, the primary causes of the chronic disease epidemic are not genetic, but behavioral. It boils down to people making the wrong choices about diet, physical activity, sleep, etc.—over and over again, throughout a lifetime. In fact, a recent Harvard study found that successfully implementing just five healthy habits (eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy body weight, moderate alcohol intake, and not smoking) could add up to 14 years to your life. (15, 16)

This makes it clear that one of the most important roles healthcare providers should play is supporting people in making positive behavior changes. Unfortunately, the conventional medical system undermines this, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The average patient visit with a primary care provider lasts 10 to 12 minutes, which barely leaves a doctor time to prescribe a drug for any new symptoms a patient presents with, much less an in-depth discussion of diet and lifestyle factors that might be contributing. (17)

As a result, 87 percent of doctors agree the healthcare profession is in decline, while 82 percent of physicians believe they have little ability to change the current system. (18) These are just a few reasons why burnout is so common in the healthcare field.

Why Functional Medicine Is the Answer

I hope this article serves as a gentle shake to conventional practitioners, and to you (as their potential patient) as well, because there is a better way, and things can change—they already are. Hundreds of clinics across the country (including my own, the California Center for Functional Medicine) have begun to implement a Functional Medicine model, which works for addressing chronic disease. Here’s why.

Big Reason 1. It Makes Room for Longer Medical Visits

More time allows doctors the chance to uncover and then address the root cause of a patient’s symptoms, as well as discuss prevention strategies. This is how health and healing happen.

Big Reason 2. It Emphasizes Collaborative Care

In Functional Medicine, the doctor–patient relationship is a partnership. What’s more, patients have access to a collaborative care team, which includes nurse practitioners, nutritionists, health coaches, and others. The team provides another layer of care between appointments.

This is just the beginning of a long list of reasons. For more, check out my book, Unconventional Medicine.

How Do You Live—and Help Others Live—a Longer, Better Life?

If you’re in healthcare, make the switch to Functional Medicine. And if you’re not yet in the field but want to be part of the revolution, now’s the time to consider becoming a health coach.

If you’re a patient, seek out Functional Medicine practitioners, preferably a team that looks at health through an evolutionary lens. Together, Functional Medicine and ancestral wisdom are unstoppable at slowing the chronic disease epidemic, as they address the mismatch between our genes and current environment (the cause of modern disease) by encouraging the time-tested healthy lifestyle choices noted above. Although eating a nutrient-dense ancestral diet and exercising seem like simple mandates, they can be difficult to follow through on without the proper support. Functional Medicine is the support you need.

As the latest science shows, there’s no biological cap to human longevity. (19, 20) Let that sink in. We don’t have to accept living shorter, unhealthier lives.

Now, I’d like to hear from you. What you do think about the latest life expectancy statistics? Let me know in the comments below!

The post Life Expectancy in the U.S.: Why the Numbers Are Falling appeared first on Chris Kresser.

Source: http://chriskresser.com December 21, 2018 at 12:06AM

[globalchristendom]

hello, would you explain your stance on LGBT marriage?relationships? Thank you

I guess I should put this longpost under a read-more…

I’m not personally disgusted by homosexuality and believe that some people are born with same-sex attraction (and others are made to have same-sex attraction through sexual trauma–I know this isn’t a popular opinion among LGBT-positive people but it just seems this way to me, I’ve heard too much to deny this) and that gay people are capable to experiencing mature love within same-sex relationships like straight people can in heterosexual relationships. Despite traditional Christian views about the matter, I have a hard time denying this.

However, I think homosexuality is either a naturally occurring defect or, in bisexuals and sometimes even heterosexual people, a mechanism to ensure the prosperity of offspring because it opens more options for single parents looking for a partner (in the event they cannot find an opposite-sex partner). I say this is not based on Christianity but my understanding of biology: all living beings seek to perpetuate their genes, and in this light I don’t understand why exclusively homosexual people exist. In fact, I suspect most people, including heterosexuals and especially women, are actually bisexual and their ability to be attracted to people of the same sex is just usually not necessary.

(Personally, I would consider myself a heterosexual because I have historically sought male partners, am currently with a man, and have historically been attracted to males. However, I have found that I am capable of attraction to women and can certainly imagine myself forming an intimate relationship with a woman if I needed to. Also titties are great tbh.)

As for how accepted homosexuality should be:

My understanding of the individual’s place in society is under construction. I used to believe, due to my insufficient experiences in the world and knowledge of history and human culture, that only the individual matters and that society has no right to our own behaviors as long as they only directly affect ourselves. I no longer believe this but don’t know where the boundary should be. I don’t feel offended by same-sex couples and certainly don’t believe people with same-sex attraction should be hurt or driven to suicide but don’t know how they should be regarded by society because they are inherently abnormal and don’t promote the creation of a new generation because they can’t naturally reproduce with their preferred partners. So I can’t say if, for example, same-sex marriage should be legally recognized, even from a secular perspective. Two people of the same sex being in a private relationship is one thing; requiring society to recognize it is another thing.

(I strongly believe that same-sex couples should be able to adopt children. A loving set of same-sex care-givers is infinitely preferable for orphans to bouncing from household to household in the foster care system. Stability is so important to childhood development.)

But I suppose this question was sent because this is a blog about Christianity, which traditionally condemns homosexuality.

I don’t believe religion should influence secular law for the most part just because people interpret even the same religion differently. It also creates strife in religiously heterogeneous societies. (I think heterogeneous societies in general should be avoided but that’s a whole other discussion) I don’t believe Christianity in particular demands obedience from the state.

In terms of if Christianity “really” condemns it (and I know this won’t be popular with some of my readership), I actually don’t think that the Bible condemns all same-sex sexual activity.

The two main texts for condemning homosexual behavior are Leviticus 20:13 (”If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman…”) and Romans 1:26-27. (To be clear: the vast majority of Christians do not think that the penalties prescribed for sins in the Old Testament apply today, and the New Testament prescribes no such thing. This is just about homosexuality as a sin; it should be out of the question if it is to be legally punished.) I believe these passages taken together imply that the sin described is only possible between two men and the act is actually anal sex. A woman cannot lie with a woman as she does with a man because a woman cannot penetrate a woman. The Romans passage is oddly silent about same-sex relations between women, even though Paul should have said something about it in the context if he meant to condemn same-sex sexual relations in general; he starts by condemning general sexual immorality in women and then goes on to condemn a form of male-on-male sex in particular. Others may interpret this differently, but they should admit that it’s unclear.

Jesus himself mentions the destruction of Sodom, where men were having anal sex with other men, so it’s not just Paul.

The New Testament doesn’t have a complete set of rules (rather, guidelines are provided by Jesus) and doesn’t address same-sex relationships/marriages, as most people in the day didn’t engage in such activity. (Of course, in Greece and Rome, bisexuality was common at least among men, but they didn’t generally marry or commit themselves to one another, if I understand it correctly?) I really think only anal sex between men (and not even all forms of male-on-male sex) is condemned in the Bible (and to be quite honest, it’s just gross in general, including between different-sex partners, just because that’s where your shit comes out of, like why. why.)

But I do think there is room for some form of matrimony between people of the same sex.

But Christian institutions have historically condemned homosexuality. I believe they should rethink their position but that they shouldn’t necessarily recognize same-sex marriages. I don’t know.

I suppose this includes transgender issues as well.

The Bible has nothing to say about transgender people. Since physically transitioning is kind of new for people with sex dysphoria, there isn’t much Christian tradition about it. I’d say most Christians think it’s unnatural.

My personal thoughts, not directly based on Christianity: While it’s true that sex dysphoria has a biological basis, whether or not sex dysphoria makes one truly the opposite sex is a philosophical question. What makes a woman and woman and a man a man? I personally can’t imagine that sex dysphoria is not a mental illness; I would assert that it is, but perhaps physically transitioning is a valid treatment. I don’t know. I’ve also heard way too many cases in which people experiencing sex dysphoria also experienced sexual trauma in the past. I would hate for such people to feel that there is no choice but to get expensive surgeries, but again, I don’t know. Perhaps in the future there will be other alternatives to transitioning for sex dysphoria. Sex dysphoria sounds really horrible and I can’t imagine what it’s like.

I believe it’s unethical to force society at large to treat people born as one sex as the other. It’s uncommon, and society has roles for the two sexes (termed genders?), and pretending that most people’s identity doesn’t correspond to their sex would muddle things.

I have a coworker who was born male and now lives as and identifies as a woman. I refer to her as her feminine name and feminine pronouns. She intends to fully transition, and it may be the only treatment option for her.

I wrote half of this while drunk. Sorry. I don’t intend to start an argument, but since I was asked, I thought I would just put my thoughts here.

[unlikelydazesoul]

Sex and Gender Identity In Sports

Should transgender and intersex compete in woman’s sports? This has been   a controversial topic for years now. The biological difference between a male and female is clear, men are physically stronger. The natural testosterone produced from male bodies allows them to lift heavier, run faster, and hit harder than women. The quote “Men are the protectors” wasn’t created based off mental strength. Men from the beginning of time have been the hunters, and protectors. They have more muscle mass than women. Women are athletic if they are tenacious, but most men are genetically gifted with muscular physics. In the news interview linked below girls stand up to a high school allowing transgender women, who are still in the beginning of transition into female to compete in high school women’s sports. Now it is okay to identify as a woman, but to still be physically, and biologically male how is it fair for the male bodies to compete against females. I believe that people should be who they are but when it starts interfering with all the tenacious work women have done to get women sports in school this is back tracking. (CT, 2020)

In the article “What is Sex What is Gender: Reading 9: The Olympic Struggle over Sex” Professor Alice Dreger writes " Anatomists still think we should base our sex division in sports on some sort of biological feature, even if it means we have to just pick one. They point out that sports require us to create all sorts of rules that aren’t simply natural and self-evident, so why not do it here, too? " (Dreger,2013) The point I take from this statement is that women and men are clearly different biologically, therefore they should be separated in competitions based on physicality. If it were Chess, no big deal in fact things of mental challenge women and men compete on the same team, because it’s based off mental capability which is equal. There is a reason men and women don’t compete and it is because the male and female anatomy are completely different. Athletes don’t want to speak up on this due to the controversy, they don’t want to be referred to as a “bigot.” The biggest issue is that if this continues there really wouldn’t be a point in women playing sports at all. Therefore, the equality movement for women would go back by decades. At this point may as well combine the male and female teams. If biologically male men can compete in female sports, whets the point of having them in the first place? “There is no transparency here; we don’t fit the words to the bodies. Instead, it is the bodies that must fit the words” to say I am a woman, but you have the biology of a man, what credibility does that hold other than the feeling. It is okay, and accepted by myself and many to not feel like the gender you were born with, but with such a new concept boundaries are being broken, and lines are being crossed. I agree that you should be who you want, but if you show up to tract practice in a sports bra but obviously a male why does that make it okay to compete against natural women who have clear disadvantage over a born male. To just say you’re a woman and not physically be is okay, but it’s not okay to compete against the women who have been born with the physically and actual disadvantage of women.

A great example of words not matching bodies is in this video linked below. Zuby a male rapper who made a mockery of the current controversy. He went to a lifting competition and said, “I identify as a female” and ended up beating the world record by 250 lbs, then turning around and stating, “I now identify as a male.” He did this to prove a point of the insane behavior. Anyone, any man can go to a female competition and say they feel “like a woman” and compete. In my opinion it’s okay to be transgender, but it’s not okay to ruin records given by biologically born females. The hard work and dedication of these women is being thrown away for a male. In my opinion transgender should have their own league, Male sports, Women sports, trans women, and trans males. It’s now time to introduce two new categories to the leagues, not add to the current ones. That being said, I support trans rights, but I do not support the deterioration of women’s sports and women’s history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugzxb5zM-A4&t=52s https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-over-transgender-athletes-in-girls-sports/2222910/

Stossel, J., Lancaster, J., Wolfe, L., Stossel, J., Bailey, R. and Shackford, S., 2021. Should Trans Women Compete Against Biological Women in Sports?. [online] Reason.com. Available at: <https://reason.com/2021/08/04/should-trans-women-compete-against-biological-women-in-sports/> [Accessed 9 December 2021]. " Alice  Dreger,  “The  Olympic  Struggle  for  Sex”  from  The Atlantic  Monthly  (July  2,  2013).  Copyright  ©  2013  by  Alice Dreger. Reprinted with the permission of the author." " Riki  Wilchins,  “All  Together  Now:  Intersex  Infants  and  IGM”  from    Queer  Theory,  Gender  Theory:  An  Instant  Primer      (Los   Angeles:   Alyson   Publications,   2004).     Copyright  ©  2004  by  Riki  Wilchins.  Reprinted  with  the  permission  of  the  author.  "

[aion-rsa]

Why Daphne Bridgerton Makes a Great Romance Heroine

https://ift.tt/3sGtGoA

This Bridgerton article contains spoilers for Season 1.

Though Bridgerton is a story of multiple romances – and many different kinds of love – its first season centers primarily on the relationship between debutante Daphne Bridgerton and the roguish Simon Bassett, Duke of Hastings. But it would be a mistake to assume that the romance is the only story this series is trying to tell or even its ultimate endgame. In truth, the real story of Bridgerton’s first season is about a young woman coming into her own, learning who she is, what she really wants, and how to find her own strength along the way. Eldest daughter Daphne Bridgerton may begin the series as a largely sheltered ingenue, but by its end, she is a confident, capable – and, yes, sexual – woman who is determined to make the most of her own power in a world that wants her to believe she doesn’t have any.

As the most generally “normal” and predictable of her siblings, Daphne is easy to overlook as a character in her own right. It’s easy to cheer for Eloise as she loudly rejects the established gender norms of her day or hope that Benedict manages to find a way to make a life for himself out of the art he so clearly enjoys. Heck, even Anthony has a dramatic secret sex life. In comparison, Daphne may seem, well, a bit dull.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

For many viewers, Daphne is only even memorable because of the fact that she gets to have sex with the very attractive Simon in a variety of gorgeous locales. This is unfortunate, particularly when there’s so much more to the eldest Bridgerton daughter than her relationship with a handsome man who seems to be allergic to shirts. In fact, Daphne is honestly fairly incredible as romance heroines go: Smart and dutiful, kind and spirited by turns, with an arc that sees her come into her own in a truly satisfying way.

Yes, Daphne’s desires are largely “simple” ones, which is to say traditionally feminine ones. She longs for a love match, a happy marriage, children of her own, and a home overflowing with the same warmth she was raised in. But far too many people assume that for this character “simple” somehow means the same thing as “boring.”  Which, let’s be clear: Daphne Bridgerton is anything but dull.

From her first moments on screen, the eldest Bridgerton daughter is remarkable. Named a “Diamond of the First Water” in the pilot’s opening moments for the act of simply being poised and pretty, Daphne spends the rest of the series’ first season quietly pushing back against the idea that her polite, delicate facade is all that she is – or all she’s allowed to be.

This is the same woman who punches a would-be assailant in the face and flings herself physically in the middle of a duel to protect the people she cares about, after all. Under that ice-blue pastel exterior is a spine of steel.  Over the course of Bridgerton’s first season, Daphne consistently makes space for herself in a world that doesn’t want to give her any choices, and she does it without compromising who she is or pretending to be something she’s not. 

Read more

TV

Will Bridgerton Run For the Planned Eight Seasons?

By Kayti Burt

TV

Eloise & Penelope: The Power of Female Friendship in Bridgerton

By Lacy Baugher

Even as she dutifully follows the rules, she’s well aware of how restrictive and oppressive they are and resents them for it. Daphne repeatedly points out that, at best, she’s allowed the barest illusion of control over her own life, and that she would be almost instantly ruined for indulging in even a fraction of the activities that her brothers are slyly applauded for. 

Anthony, for example, can show up late to public events (that include an audience with the queen), take a mistress, and shirk any responsibility as the de facto head of the Bridgerton family, all while facing few if any repercussions for his actions. (Sorry, occasionally, his mom gets mad.) But Daphne must carry the fate of all her younger sisters with her into every single parlor and ballroom, as it is Eloise, Francesca, and Hyacinth who will pay the price socially if she puts so much as a foot wrong.

The triumph of Daphne’s story lies in the fact that, though she achieves what would, by the standards of her day, be considered the ultimate dream, she doesn’t let it make her hard, cynical, or complicit in the same system that oppresses other women like her. Her elevation as a duchess means she can assure public life will be easier for her sisters and step in to help other women who are similar victims of a social system that’s geared toward the benefit of men.

And it is her experience with Simon – which leads to her realization of how purposefully ignorant she was kept about matters of sex, marriage, and communication – that ultimately shows her not just how much she doesn’t know, but how it is women like her who help uphold that system of ignorance.

It should be noted that Bridgerton does Daphne a great disservice by essentially porting over a sex scene of questionable intent from the novel the series is based on without using it to explore larger issues of consent and manipulation. In it, Daphne forces Simon to release inside of her, as something of disturbing relationship test – an attempt to figure out whether everything he’d told her about sex and the basic biology of creating children had been a lie. 

It was, but that doesn’t make her actions any less terrible and one of the biggest flaws in the first season is that Bridgerton never really addresses them in any significant way. Tying Daphne’s treatment of her husband to the larger narrative of her growing understanding of sex, knowledge, and power would have been a natural next step in her emotional journey. Particularly when so much of her story is about her recognition that though she may not be able to overthrow the patriarchal system of power she lives in, she can still work to change it – or at least dampen its impact – from within.

The post Why Daphne Bridgerton Makes a Great Romance Heroine appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2LNOcTt

[pamphletstoinspire]

Catholic Physics - Reflections of a Catholic Scientist - Part 20

St. John Paul's Rapprochement with Science: "A Quest for Common Understanding"

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish." St. John Paul II, Letter to Rev. George Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory.

"Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic." ibid.

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." St. John Paul II, Encyclical Fides et Ratio.

"It can be said, in fact, that research, by exploring the greatest and the smallest, contributes to the glory of God which is reflected in every part of the universe."

St. John Paul II, Address on the Jubilee of Scientists, 2000

Among the many posts and articles on the canonization of St. John Paul II*, there have been few comments about his efforts to effect a rapprochement between the Church and science (notice the upper case and lack thereof).  The term "rapprochement" has been chosen with care: "an establishment or resumption of harmonious relations" (Oxford English Dictionary).  The term is applied to peace treaties after a state of war, and although the Catholic Church has not declared war on science, there are those scientists who do think there is such a war, and there are those advocates of scientism--that science explains all we need to know about the world--who have declared war on the Church.  These last ignore the founding contribution of the Church to the establishment of science (see Stacy Trasanco's Science was born of Christianity , and the contribution of Catholic Religious (Mendel, LeMaitre amongst many) to science in Fathers of Science.

There are three ways in which St. JP II tried to bring about this rapprochement: 1) redressing the Galileo Affair; 2) making the position of the Church on evolution clear and consistent with both dogma and science; 3) instituting conferences on how Divine Intervention might be manifested in several scientific disciplines.   The first two have been dealt with at some length in the blogosphere, so I'll treat those only briefly.  I'll focus on the third, which has been an invaluable resource for me in my discussions of science and religion.

THE GALILEO AFFAIR

As George Sim Johnston puts it in his book, The Galileo Affair

"The Galileo affair is the one stock argument used to show that science and Catholic dogma are antagonistic. While Galileo's eventual condemnation was certainly unjust a close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend." George Sim Johnston

Summarizing his arguments, one can say that both Galileo and some Church officials were at fault, but it was a different time with different concerns--high officials in the Church, initially sympathetic to Galileo, were defending orthodoxy against the onslaught of the Reformation.  Galileo was condemned not for his advocacy of the Copernican theory per se, but for his advocacy that Scripture was to be interpreted loosely (even though the same had been done by St. Augustine).  And his science was wrong--circular orbits for the planets and his theory of tides.  All this is dealt with at greater length in the article linked above.  

Nevertheless, this one piece of history has been the cannon used in the war of materialists and scientists against the Church, in their perceived conflict between the Church and Science.  In 1979 St. JP II asked the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to make an in-depth study of the affair.  Commenting on their report in 1992, he said, as an apology, explaining what had happened:

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...." St. John Paul II, Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as quoted in L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

Liberal news media made much of this apology, but it was only recognizing in a formal way earlier actions of the Church--removing Galileo's book from the index, setting up a Vatican Observatory--and setting the affair in a historical context.   What was important was his affirmation in this apology that science and the Church both have domains of truth, which do not deny each other--as in his address on evolution, "Truth cannot contradict Truth"

ON EVOLUTION

In his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science St. JP II, expanding on the doctrine set forth by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis, asserted that

"there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points." St. John Paul II, 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Among these points is the most important requirement that the soul of man is endowed by God (the Holy Spirit) and not materially constructed:

"It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)" ibid.

He also showed much insight in commenting on the scientific aspects of evolution, that while evolution (the descent of species) is a fact, there is more than one theory--mechanism--proposed to explain evolution.

"As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person."

It is unfortunate that both scientists and lay persons do not share St. JP II's understanding but equate the Darwinian model for evolution--"survival of the fittest"--with evolution, the descent of species.  And as with his apology for the Galileo affair, the liberal media made much of his acknowledgement that evolution is a fact, but neglected the historical and theological context which he brought to that statement.

A QUEST FOR COMMON UNDERSTANDING--DIVINE INTERVENTION CONFERENCES

In 1987 St. JP II instituted the first of a series of conferences, held at the Papal Summer Residence, Castelgandalfo, bringing together scientists, philosophers and theologians.  Not all of these were Catholic and, indeed, a few were not even theists, as the term is commonly understood.  He addressed the conferees at this first meeting ("Our Knowledge of God and Nature: Physics, Philosophy and Theology") via a letter to George Coyne, SJ, Director of the Vatican Observatory. (I recommend the reader go to the link for that letter, to get the full import of St. JP II's thoughts on science and the Church.) He stressed first, as in the quote at the beginning of this post, the contributions science could make to the Church and the Church to science, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."  

He showed a sophisticated knowledge of frontier research in physics and biology in his comments on how scientists were trying to achieve a unified picture of scientific theory in physics and biology:

"The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe...seems to be reflected and even reinforced in what contemporary science is revealing to us....Contemporary physics forms a striking example. The quest for unification of all four fundamental physical forces--gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear interactions--has met with increasing success....In the life sciences, too, something similar has happened. Molecular biologists have probed the structure of living material...(and) have discovered that the same underlying constituents (genes and proteins coded by genes) serve in the make-up of all living organisms on earth." St. John Paul II, letter to George Coyne.

Although St. JPII argued that science and theology could, and should, mutually enrich the other, he did not think they should be unified, as in unified science or unified theology:

"By encouraging openness between the Church and the scientific communities, we are not envisioning a disciplinary unity between theology and science like that which exists within a given scientific field or within theology proper....The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science...To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness....Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic (emphasis added).  Science must bear witness to its own worth....neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other."  ibid.

The quotation above reminds me of my encounters playing harmony parts (tenor and bass) in our Church instrumental group: the musical lines are distinct, for the most part different, but the harmony enriches the melody, as does science, theology.

Although St. JP II respected the integrity and distinctiveness of science and theology, he did emphasize that they could and should enrich each other in areas such as cosmology and molecular biology, and, accordingly, set up conferences to effect such enrichment.  He stressed the importance of putting scientific findings in a proper context, and the difficulty of doing such in our contemporary setting:

"For the truth of the matter is that the Church and the scientific community will inevitably interact....Christians will inevitably assimilate the prevailing ideas about the world, and these are inevitably shaped by science. The only question is whether they will do this critically or unreflectively, with depth and nuance or with a shallowness that debases the Gospel and leaves us ashamed before history.  Scientists, like all human beings, will make decisions on what gives value and meaning to their lives and to their work.  This they will do well or poorly, with the reflective depth that theological wisdom can help them attain, or with an unconsidered absolutizing of their results beyond their reasonable and proper limits." ibid.

The last sentence in the above quote applies very well, I believe, to those cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and cognitive scientists such as Stephen Pinker, who deny God on the basis of a limitless science.

I'll have to add that all the insights above (with the possible exception of the musical analogy) are those of St. John Paul II.  I've been blessed in being able to bring these to the attention of others.

*In what follows I will try to avoid the cumbersome form "Pope St. John Paul II", and meaning no disrespect (he is my hero!) will refer to him as St. JP II.

From a series of articles written by: Bob Kurland - a Catholic Scientist

[itbeatsbookmarks]

(Via: Hacker News)

Is it really just sexism? An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

Everyone knows that you’re not supposed to start your argument with ‘everyone knows,’ but in this case, I think we ought to make an exception:

Everyone knows that STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) has a problem retaining women (see, for example Jean, Payne, and Thompson 2015). We pour money into attracting girls and women to STEM fields. We pour money into recruiting women, training women, and addressing sexism, both overt and subconscious. In 2011, the United States spent nearly $3 billion tax dollars on STEM education, of which roughly one third was spent supporting and encouraging underrepresented groups to enter STEM (including women). And yet, women are still leaving at alarming rates.

Alarming? Isn’t that a little, I don’t know, alarmist? Well, let’s look at some stats.

A recent report by the National Science Foundation (2011) found that women received 20.3% of the bachelor’s degrees and 18.6% of the PhD degrees in physics in 2008. In chemistry, women earned 49.95% of the bachelor’s degrees but only 36.1% of the doctoral degrees. By comparison, in biology women received 59.8% of the bachelor’s degrees and 50.6% of the doctoral degrees. A recent article in Chemical and Engineering News showed a chart based on a survey of life sciences workers by Liftstream and MassBio demonstrating how women are vastly underrepresented in science leadership despite earning degrees at similar rates, which I’ve copied below. The story is the same in academia, as you can see on the second chart — from comparable or even larger number of women at the student level, we move towards a significantly larger proportion of men at the more and more advanced stages of an academic career.

Although 74% of women in STEM report “loving their work,” half (56%, in fact) leave over the course of their career — largely at the “mid-level” point, when the loss of their talent is most costly as they have just completed training and begun to contribute maximally to the work force.

A study by Dr. Flaherty found that women who obtain faculty position in astronomy spent on average 1 year less than their male counterparts between completing their PhD and obtaining their position — but he concluded that this is because women leave the field at a rate 3 to 4 times greater than men, and in particular, if they do not obtain a faculty position quickly, will simply move to another career. So, women and men are hired at about the same rate during the early years of their post docs, but women stop applying to academic positions and drop out of the field as time goes on, pulling down the average time to hiring for women.

There are many more studies to this effect. At this point, the assertion that women leave STEM at an alarming rate after obtaining PhDs is nothing short of an established fact. In fact, it’s actually a problem across all academic disciplines, as you can see in this matching chart showing the same phenomenon in humanities, social sciences, and education. The phenomenon has been affectionately dubbed the “leaky pipeline.”

But hang on a second, maybe there just aren’t enough women qualified for the top levels of STEM? Maybe it’ll all get better in a few years if we just wait around doing nothing?

Nope, sorry. This study says that 41% of highly qualified STEM people are female. And also, it’s clear from the previous charts and stats that a significantly larger number of women are getting PhDs than going on the be professors, in comparison to their male counterparts. Dr. Laurie Glimcher, when she started her professorship at Harvard University in the early 1980s, remembers seeing very few women in leadership positions. “I thought, ‘Oh, this is really going to change dramatically,’ ” she says. But 30 years later, “it’s not where I expected it to be.” Her experiences are similar to those of other leading female faculty.

So what gives? Why are all the STEM women leaving?

It is widely believed that sexism is the leading problem. A quick google search of “sexism in STEM” will turn up a veritable cornucopia of articles to that effect. And indeed, around 60% of women report experiencing some form of sexism in the last year (Robnett 2016). So, that’s clearly not good.

And yet, if you ask leading women researchers like Nobel Laureate in Physics 2018, Professor Donna Strickland, or Canada Research Chair in Advanced Functional Materials (Chemistry), Professor Eugenia Kumacheva, they say that sexism was not a barrier in their careers. Moreover, extensive research has shown that sexism has overall decreased since Professors Strickland and Kumacheva (for example) were starting their careers. Even more interestingly, Dr. Rachael Robnett showed that more mathematical fields such as Physics have a greater problem with sexism than less mathematical fields, such as Chemistry, a finding which rings true with the subjective experience of many women I know in Chemistry and Physics. However, as we saw above, women leave the field of Chemistry in greater proportions following their BSc than they leave Physics. On top of that, although 22% of women report experiencing sexual harassment at work, the proportion is the same among STEM and non-STEM careers, and yet women leave STEM careers at a much higher rate than non-STEM careers.

So, it seems that sexism can not fully explain why women with STEM PhDs are leaving STEM. At the point when women have earned a PhD, for the most part they have already survived the worst of the sexism. They’ve already proven themselves to be generally thick-skinned and, as anyone with a PhD can attest, very stubborn in the face of overwhelming difficulties. Sexism is frustrating, and it can limit advancement, but it doesn’t fully explain why we have so many women obtaining PhDs in STEM, and then leaving. In fact, at least in the U of T chemistry department, faculty hires are directly proportional to the applicant pool —although the exact number of applicants are not made public, from public information we can see that approximately one in four interview invitees are women, and approximately one in four hires are women. Our hiring committees have received bias training, and it seems that it has been largely successful. That’s not to say that we’re done, but it’s time to start looking elsewhere to explain why there are so few women sticking around.

So why don’t more women apply?

Well, one truly brilliant researcher had the groundbreaking idea of asking women why they left the field. When you ask women why they left, the number one reason they cite is balancing work/life responsibilities — which as far as I can tell is a euphemism for family concerns.

The research is in on this. Women who stay in academia expect to marry later, and delay or completely forego having children, and if they do have children, plan to have fewer than their non-STEM counterparts (Sassler et al 2016, Owens 2012). Men in STEM have no such difference compared to their non-STEM counterparts; they marry and have children about the same ages and rates as their non-STEM counterparts (Sassler et al 2016). Women leave STEM in droves in their early to mid thirties (Funk and Parker 2018) — the time when women’s fertility begins to decrease, and risks of childbirth complications begin to skyrocket for both mother and child. Men don’t see an effect on their fertility until their mid forties. Of the 56% of women who leave STEM, 50% wind up self-employed or using their training in a not for profit or government, 30% leave to a non-STEM more ‘family friendly’ career, and 20% leave to be stay-at-home moms (Ashcraft and Blithe 2002). Meanwhile, institutions with better childcare and maternity leave policies have twice(!) the number of female faculty in STEM (Troeger 2018). In analogy to the affectionately named “leaky pipeline,” the challenge of balancing motherhood and career has been titled the “maternal wall.”

To understand the so-called maternal wall better, let’s take a quick look at the sketch of a typical academic career.

For the sake of this exercise, let’s all pretend to be me. I’m a talented 25 year old PhD candidate studying Physical Chemistry — I use laser spectroscopy to try to understand atypical energy transfer processes in innovative materials that I hope will one day be used to make vastly more efficient solar panels. I got my BSc in Chemistry and Mathematics at the age of 22, and have published 4 scientific papers in two different fields already (Astrophysics and Environmental Chemistry). I’ve got a big scholarship, and a lot of people supporting me to give me the best shot at an academic career — a career I dearly want. But, I also want a family — maybe two or three kids. Here’s what I can expect if I pursue an academic career:

With any luck, 2–3 years from now I’ll graduate with a PhD, at the age of 27. Academics are expected to travel a lot, and to move a lot, especially in their 20s and early 30s — all of the key childbearing years. I’m planning to go on exchange next year, and then the year after that I’ll need to work hard to wrap up research, write a thesis, and travel to several conferences to showcase my work. After I finish my PhD, I’ll need to undertake one or two post doctoral fellowships, lasting one or two years each, probably in completely different places. During that time, I’ll start to apply for professorships. In order to do this, I’ll travel around to conferences to advertise my work and to meet important leaders in my field, and then, if I am invited for interviews, I’ll travel around to different universities for two or three days at a time to undertake these interviews. This usually occurs in a person’s early 30s — our helpful astronomy guy, Dr. Flaherty, found the average time to hiring was 5 years, so let’s say I’m 32 at this point. If offered a position, I’ll spend the next year or two renovating and building a lab, buying equipment, recruiting talented graduate students, and designing and teaching courses. People work really, really hard during this time and have essentially no leisure time. Now I’m 34. Within usually 5 years I’ll need to apply for tenure. This means that by the time I’m 36, I’ll need to be making significant contributions in my field, and then in the final year before applying for tenure, I will once more need to travel to many conferences to promote my work, in order to secure tenure — if I fail to do so, my position at the university would probably be terminated. Although many universities offer a “tenure extension” in cases where an assistant professor has had a child, this does not solve all of the problems. Taking a year off during that critical 5 or 6 year period often means that the research “goes bad” — students flounder, projects that were promising get “scooped” by competitors at other institutions, and sometimes, in biology and chemistry especially, experiments literally go bad. You wind up needing to rebuild much more than just a year’s worth of effort.

At no point during this time do I appear stable enough, career-wise, to take even six months off to be pregnant and care for a newborn. Hypothetical future-me is travelling around, or even moving, conducting and promoting my own independent research and training students. As you’re likely aware, very pregnant people and newborns don’t travel well. And academia has a very individualistic and meritocratic culture. Starting at the graduate level, huge emphasis is based on independent research, and independent contributions, rather than valuing team efforts. This feature of academia is both a blessing and a curse. The individualistic culture means that people have the independence and the freedom to pursue whatever research interests them — in fact this is the main draw for me personally. But it also means that there is often no one to fall back on when you need extra support, and because of biological constraints, this winds up impacting women more than men.

At this point, I need to make sure that you’re aware of some basics of female reproductive biology. According to Wikipedia, the unquestionable source of all reliable knowledge, at age 25, my risk of conceiving a baby with chromosomal abnormalities (including Down’s Syndrome) is 1 in about 1400. By 35, that risk more than quadruples to 1 in 340. At 30, I have a 75% chance of a successful birth in one year, but by 35 it has dropped to 66%, and by 40 it’s down to 44%. Meanwhile, 87 to 94% of women report at least 1 health problem immediately after birth, and 1.5% of mothers have a severe health problem, while 31% have long-term persistent health problems as a result of pregnancy (defined as lasting more than six months after delivery). Furthermore, mothers over the age of 35 are at higher risk for pregnancy complications like preterm delivery, hypertension, superimposed preeclampsia, severe preeclampsia (Cavazos-Rehg et al 2016). Because of factors like these, pregnancies in women over 35 are known as “geriatric pregnancies” due to the drastically increased risk of complications. This tight timeline for births is often called the “biological clock” — if women want a family, they basically need to start before 35. Now, that’s not to say it’s impossible to have a child later on, and in fact some studies show that it has positive impacts on the child’s mental health. But it is riskier.

So, women with a PhD in STEM know that they have the capability to make interesting contributions to STEM, and to make plenty of money doing it. They usually marry someone who also has or expects to make a high salary as well. But this isn’t the only consideration. Such highly educated women are usually aware of the biological clock and the risks associated with pregnancy, and are confident in their understanding of statistical risks.

The Irish say, “The common challenge facing young women is achieving a satisfactory work-life balance, especially when children are small. From a career perspective, this period of parenthood (which after all is relatively short compared to an entire working life) tends to coincide exactly with the critical point at which an individual’s career may or may not take off. […] All the evidence shows that it is at this point that women either drop out of the workforce altogether, switch to part-time working or move to more family-friendly jobs, which may be less demanding and which do not always utilise their full skillset.”

And in the Netherlands, “The research project in Tilburg also showed that women academics have more often no children or fewer children than women outside academia.” Meanwhile in Italy “On a personal level, the data show that for a significant number of women there is a trade-off between family and work: a large share of female economists in Italy do not live with a partner and do not have children”

Most jobs available to women with STEM PhDs offer greater stability and a larger salary earlier in the career. Moreover, most non-academic careers have less emphasis on independent research, meaning that employees usually work within the scope of a larger team, and so if a person has to take some time off, there are others who can help cover their workload. By and large, women leave to go to a career where they will be stable, well funded, and well supported, even if it doesn’t fulfill their passion for STEM — or they leave to be stay-at-home moms or self-employed.

I would presume that if we made academia a more feasible place for a woman with a family to work, we could keep almost all of those 20% of leavers who leave to just stay at home, almost all of the 30% who leave to self-employment, and all of those 30% who leave to more family friendly careers (after all, if academia were made to be as family friendly as other careers, there would be no incentive to leave). Of course, there is nothing wrong with being a stay at home parent — it’s an admirable choice and contributes greatly to our society. One estimate valued the equivalent salary benefit of stay-at-home parenthood at about $160,000/year. Moreover, children with a stay-at-home parent show long term benefits such as better school performance — something that most academic women would want for their children. But a lot of people only choose it out of necessity — about half of stay-at-home moms would prefer to be working (Ciciolla, Curlee, & Luthar 2017). When the reality is that your salary is barely more than the cost of daycare, then a lot of people wind up giving up and staying home with their kids rather than paying for daycare. In a heterosexual couple it will usually be the woman that winds up staying home since she is the one who needs to do things like breast feed anyways. And so we lose these women from the workforce.

And yet, somehow, during this informal research adventure of mine, most scholars and policy makers seem to be advising that we try to encourage young girls to be interested in STEM, and to address sexism in the workplace, with the implication that this will fix the high attrition rate in STEM women. But from what I’ve found, the stats don’t back up sexism as the main reason women leave. There is sexism, and that is a problem, and women do leave STEM because of it — but it’s a problem that we’re already dealing with pretty successfully, and it’s not why the majority of women who have already obtained STEM PhDs opt to leave the field. The whole family planning thing is huge and for some reason, almost totally swept under the rug — mostly because we’re too shy to talk about it, I think.

In fact, I think that the plethora of articles suggesting that the problem is sexism actually contribute to our unwillingness to talk about the family planning problem, because it reinforces the perception that that men in power will not hire a woman for fear that she’ll get pregnant and take time off. Why would anyone talk about how they want to have a family when they keep hearing that even the mere suggestion of such a thing will limit their chances of being hired? I personally know women who have avoided bringing up the topic with colleagues or supervisors for fear of professional repercussions. So we spend all this time and energy talking about how sexism is really bad, and very little time trying to address the family planning challenge, because, I guess, as the stats show, if women are serious enough about science then they just give up on the family (except for the really, really exceptional ones who can handle the stresses of both simultaneously).

To be very clear, I’m not saying that sexism is not a problem. What I am saying is that, thanks to the sustained efforts of a large number of people over a long period of time, we’ve reduced the sexism problem to the point where, at least at the graduate level, it is no longer the largest major barrier to women’s advancement in STEM. Hurray! That does not mean that we should stop paying attention to the issue of sexism, but does mean that it’s time to start paying more attention to other issues, like how to properly support women who want to raise a family while also maintaining a career in STEM.

So what can we do to better support STEM women who want families?

A couple of solutions have been tentatively tested. From a study mentioned above, it’s clear that providing free and conveniently located childcare makes a colossal difference to women’s choices of whether or not to stay in STEM, alongside extended and paid maternity leave. Another popular and successful strategy was implemented by a leading woman in STEM, Laurie Glimcher, a past Harvard Professor in Immunology and now CEO of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. While working at NIH, Dr. Glimcher designed a program to provide primary caregivers (usually women) with an assistant or lab technician to help manage their laboratories while they cared for children. Now, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she has created a similar program to pay for a technician or postdoctoral researcher for assistant professors. In the academic setting, Dr. Glimcher’s strategies are key for helping to alleviate the challenges associated with the individualistic culture of academia without compromising women’s research and leadership potential.

For me personally, I’m in the ideal situation for an academic woman. I graduated my BSc with high honours in four years, and with many awards. I’ve already had success in research and have published several peer reviewed papers. I’ve faced some mild sexism from peers and a couple of TAs, but nothing that’s seriously held me back. My supervisors have all been extremely supportive and feminist, and all of the people that I work with on a daily basis are equally wonderful. Despite all of this support, I’m looking at the timelines of an academic career, and the time constraints of female reproduction, and honestly, I don’t see how I can feasible expect to stay in academia and have the family life I want. And since I’m in the privileged position of being surrounded by supportive and feminist colleagues, I can say it: I’m considering leaving academia, if something doesn’t change, because even though I love it, I don’t see how it can fit in to my family plans.

But wait! All of these interventions are really expensive. Money doesn’t just grow on trees, you know!

It doesn’t in general, but in this case it kind of does — well, actually, we already grew it. We spend billions of dollars training women in STEM. By not making full use of their skills, if we look at only the american economy, we are wasting about $1.5 billion USD per year in economic benefits they would have produced if they stayed in STEM. So here’s a business proposal: let’s spend half of that on better family support and scientific assistants for primary caregivers, and keep the other half in profit. Heck, let’s spend 99% — $1.485 billion (in the states alone) on better support. That should put a dent in the support bill, and I’d sure pick up $15 million if I saw it lying around. Wouldn’t you?

By demonstrating that we will support women in STEM who choose to have a family, we will encourage more women with PhDs to apply for the academic positions that they are eminently qualified for. Our institutions will benefit from the wider applicant pool, and our whole society will benefit from having the skills of these highly trained and intelligent women put to use innovating new solutions to our modern day challenges.