Doctored Subjects: The Trans-Self-Delusion of Sex and Gender (II)
Your Mother. Your dear mother might have not known everything. But she would have been quite correct in explaining to you there are what some would call cardinal questions that pertain to specific topics and themes. The self-delusion that you can go to the doctor, allow yourself to be subject to an endless battery of invasives; of anatomical cutting, pasting, deleting, blurring, stretching, and stitching in the hope of attaining a sex or gender change, also has its cardinal questions. But while concerning other themes and matters people have always attempted to identify and pose the relevant cardinal questions, strangely, on the theme this writing is about those are the very questions that almost nobody ever asks, even though they endorse, buy, and as they used to say, drink the whole Kool-Aid of this self-delusion simply because it makes the rounds in the name “freedom” and “love.”
But there are too cardinal questions pertaining to theme of the Foucauldian doctored subjects we met in Part I of this discussion. We will first pose and discuss the most cardinals of them both, linking up to the second in due time. Just in case, a caveat. “Cardinal questions” are called so because they are the ones that must always be answered regardless whatever else might be overlook. Here we go. If, as we concluded in Part I last week—if there is nothing that can reasonably be conceived as "transsexuality," and if only the concept of gender and the abstract reality it refers to is extant, then, what is a gender? What is the human biological fact the concept "gender" is a reference to?
Two inextricable answers can be provided to this question. Or rather, the answer to this question is two-fold, as by necessity both biology and philosophy is herein equally called up to say its piece, as it were. So, to answer the question right off the bag: a gender is an animal entity endowed by nature with the distinctly human capability to engender. By engender I do not just mean to "procreate", "bring to life," "originate," or to "bring into being," as can be found in the dictionary. This answer comes short when it comes to humans.
To be sure, any other animal entity apart from the human has the nature-endowed capability to execute any of those functions without however engendering, without producing a gender, that is. That is to say, the bull and the cow for example procreate and bring into being and consequently are the originators of male and female calves. The rooster, or if you prefer, the cock and the hen procreate, and thus bring to life and into being and consequently are the originators of female and male chicks that will in time become roosters and hens on their own right. And so on and so forth for the rest of the animal world.
But what is distinctively characteristic of the animal human entity is that in procreating and bringing life into being we do more than to become the originators of human males and human females— our procreation is more than just that; our procreation transcends its animal maleness and femaleness, as we become men and women. Men and women are, essentially masculine or feminine, with shared traits between each other in a non-essential or determinant way. All other kinds of animals are excluded by nature from becoming anything else than what they were at procreation and their coming into being. Because of this it is that for example in the West, humanity came to speak of masculine and feminine genders, precisely to underscore in language its transcendence from the animal state of femaleness and maleness, in which the rest of the animal species forever remains. Canines, bovines, equestrians, or fowlers for example are not constituted by nature as genders, therefore we cannot name anything in them as either masculine or feminine. Thus, they only have sex— even if through anthropomorphic language they have traditionally been assumed otherwise. But as the female bovine animal that it is, apart from eventually getting turned into a stake, the cow can never become more than that, as it cannot by natural or medicated intervention transcend its bovine femaleness.
That the above is the case immediately suggests that femaleness and maleness, especially if medically acquired, cannot constitute themselves into men or women, since they necessarily preserve in them the masculinity or femininity into which they were engendered. “Female” is not without qualifications just another word for feminine; and the same goes for “male” in relation to masculine.
Because the advocates of transsexualism proceed from a great cultural ignorance on this point, shedding some light on this is more than necessary. Thus, as a matter of the logic of language, since time immemorial an anthropomorphic metaphor has been passing off undetected in the common use. That goes to say: it is to the sex organs themselves that in the ancient languages a qualification as either “male” or “female” was given, not to the individual that received it from Nature. In the ancient languages of the West, Greek and Latin, from which English takes more than a few words, it is the penis itself that is male and the vagina that is female. (A glimpse into this is offered by the suffix marking of gender in each word, and by remembering why it was that until relatively recent times women themselves used to be metaphorically referred as the “sex” in all western languages, presumably because they are the physical and biological site though which engendering happens). In the ancient cultures our modern world is descended from a man is male and a woman is female by the linguistic, semantic extension of their respective sex organs. Therefore, it is only figuratively, by synecdoche, that a man came to be viewed as “male” and a woman as “female,” after their sex organ.
This linguistic logic, which goes factored in the modes in which all languages produce meanings, as it happens in millions of cases, has gone undetected in the modern tradition, and has thus contributed to the self-delusion that the sex of individuals can be “transitioned” from if only subjects could be for example medically "re-aligned" with the right sex parts, which to begin with, were nowhere to be found in the anatomy of the subjects before the doctoring of their gender got started.
From this fundamental failure on the part of the proponents of transsexualism (the whole liberal democratic political and cultural ordering) to detect this problematic in the language we can gauge how great its contribution has been to the state of mental and cultural disarray prevalent in our days.
And worse: such self-delusion and disarray impede such proponents from even realizing how they themselves unwittingly confirm that those are correct and has gotten it right who question or reject the self-delusory ideology of "transitioning." For, to get outfitted with male or female sex parts to be enabled by the medical establishment to claim a "gender identity," only proves that the gender the medical subject will identify with, will continue to be determined by the surgical-acquired sex part, whether male or female. So, it turns out that the "cis" got it right from first: sex and gender always remain on this side, which is the “side” of the sex organ to be bore by the Foucauldian medical subject. Anatomy ("cis") continues to be destiny, after all.
Soon your mother will come back into the picture, so do not despair.
In the meanwhile, what follows is worth of note. Once "gender" is understood as a latent biologic-genetic potentiality to engender beyond femaleness and maleness; and once it is understood that femaleness and maleness are simply phenomena of the feminine and the masculine, then it becomes patent that the genders can be no more than two, and that their names are "men" and "women," and this regardless their sexuality or sexual orientation. Femaleness and maleness being just phenomena of the feminine and the masculine genders, Carl Jung named them human archetypes, and Freud theorized them as bi-sexual components of both genders.
Biologically, that translates to this: the cellular markings of the sex-identity of one gender are potentially present in the other, without necessarily getting to express themselves sexually, therefore contributing nothing of significance to either gender identity or sexual orientation or sexual preference. It is not so strange then if researchers working in the field of sex biology are finding out in our days what they are calling "Differences or Disorders Developments," or DDS, which accordingly, leads them to conclude that, as I recently read, “1in 100 person has one form or another of." But that is just an oblique way of stating that Jung and Freud were correct in speaking of human archetypes of sexuality as referred just above, which are now being rediscovered by biologists from the cellular, genetic perspectives. Not that the scientists working on this field always realize or acknowledge that they are walking on trodden paths, while adjusting their findings to accommodate the GLBTQAnB+PZ identitarian ideology on which the doctoring of the genders is carried out in the liberal demo-progressive societies of the West. Maybe because of this, science is still to explain how in hell could have humanity ever arrived to the two-gender binary, if the "disorders," in sex development is so widely distributed and encountered throughout the world.
Nonetheless, the science might be correct in holding that in the sex of cells a "genetic patchwork" operates which allows for some genetic markings of sex that however would not match the rest of their body, as I have recently read. Or that, in other words, genetic markings of different sexes can be identified in a cell not all of which correspond to the female or female qualification scientists might assign to cells. Applied to human gendering, this simply means that at the cellular level the feminine and the masculine partakes of each other's genetics, while at the same time maintaining each their distinct, distinguishable gender characteristics, as both Jung and Freud intuited from their research. Thus, it seems the science of molecular sex has not much to report that is new. For, in the end it matters little that it has been discovered that, as it can be read here, the "patchwork of genetically distinct sexes" has "subtle effects" on the anatomical and physiological characteristics of our sex cells, and these on gendering anatomy and physiology. That is because simply put, we are not our cells. The whole is not the mechanical summation of its parts. So, gender identity is not limited to, nor can it be reduced to the sex of our cells, since it is not determined by them in a straight-up manner.
From this, only one conclusion is warranted, which to arrive at we are to proceed as though no answer has yet been submitted herein as to what is to be understood by the concept of gender— which of course we have.
And thus, we ask again: What does "gender" mean and what does it mean to say that one has or belongs to a gender?
For starters, the genders— the masculine and the feminine, mutually engender and thus reciprocally determine each other. A gender is then a biological determination of gender— of genders mutually engendering themselves, that is. The masculine is a biological determination of the feminine as much as the feminine is a determination of the masculine. Gendering takes place as the coming into the fullness of their development of all genetic, cellular, or molecular factors embodied in organisms that in humans, not in other kinds of animals, acquire sex expressions, and which consequently can ostensibly express themselves sexually. Such fullness of development is what has come to be known as puberty, a stage that coincides with, and that anatomically and physiologically signals, such fullness in development. And precisely because of that, it is now that the initial manifestations of gender self-identity attain. In puberty, the human animal conceives of itself as belonging to, or of being of a gender or the other, either masculine or feminine, a process inextricable from the acquisition of consciousness of the capabilities and inclinations of the sex anatomy which the organism has been endowed with. In humans, for reasons elucidated earlier, what the immediately visible anatomy of one's sex announces is not that we— that one is male or female. What that signals, and attests to, is gender-specific anatomical and physiological capabilities.
Only in animals other than human consciousness of gender does not arise, and that even though alike humans they too are born naturally endowed with a sex anatomy and physiology. This being the case, it straightforwardly reaffirms that foremost, what is male or female, in both humans and consciousness-deprived animals, are their sex organs, not themselves. And this implies that again, having a penis or a vagina, or neither (or both), does not by itself determine masculine or feminine in humans. For scientists and researchers on the anatomy of sex and the psychology of sexuality this crucial point has never been clear; consequently, they have failed to clear things up for society. (As I already pointed out, century-old lacunae in scientific Latin philology have impeded modern sciences to think this problematic in line with the Greek and Roman minds).
Since it has not yet been understood that what is "male" or "female" are the sex organs and not the medical subjects themselves, trans-activists, in conjunction with the liberal medical establishment, have willfully or not created the lie that a gender is being assigned, that is, created and hoisted upon a newly-born every time that the sex box in the registrars is checked in either with either "male" or "female." Sure enough, the Latin "Cis" translates to "on this side of"; but concerning sexuality and gendering, on "this" side of what? As a matter of professional ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, medical practice has no “sides.” And as matter of well-articulated thinking, the concept of gender has no “sides,” either. We are never on this or the other side of the concept of sex or of gender. It follows that the cis of "cisgender" is obviously a linguistic marking of bad faith, strategically conceived of by transsexualism as it seeks to badmouth “normative heterosexuality” in its effort to normalize the trans on "transgender," which cis is nothing but a back-formation of. First, “transgender” was born; then “cisgender” was back-formed from it, invented to foment the self-delusion that, by visiting the surgery ward of hospitals, one has gone beyond “normative” heterosexuality and have “corrected” what it intentionally got “wrong.”
But we have seen that neither the concept nor the factuality of gender or sex can be transitioned from. Furthermore, we have also pointed out why the acquisition of male or female sex parts intended to "align" the medical subject's sexual or gender delusion does not more than to place them "on this side" of their newly purchased penis or vagina. But then, if so, the attempt to getting medically “transitioned” is a self-contradictory absurdity not worth the money, the stitches, the scars, the pain at sitting, and peeing troubles
.
Now, here comes your dear mother again.
She wants to remind you that, as discussed above, the concept of gender refers to a phenomenal dynamic specific to human biology that allows for a natural capability to engender. This mode of understanding the problematic at hand immediately suggests to anybody not fallen under trans-self-delusion, that gender is not a “social construct” as the sex-cultural Left has been misleading society into believing. Gender is rather a reality of nature that is socially apprehended. Other animals, for example cows or snakes, cannot be transitioned by the medical establishment from a “gender” that they do not have, nor from their sex; although snakes do have a sex, practicing surgical or hormonal procedurals on their sexual organs does not turn them into “trans.” There are not “transgendered-cows” in nature, nor trans-sexual snakes.
Thus, if gender is a fact of natural that gets socially apprehended, this mode of understanding the whole problematic is further bolstered by the reflection that, if we were to accept as true that gender is a “social construction” then to “transition” is still to remain trapped in such construction, therefore reinforcing the concept of gender. The gender concept cannot be transcended in any direction. It will then on the same logic remain truth that a gender cannot be transitioned “into.”
On the other hand, since nobody can “transition” themselves; since they must be “transitioned” by an entity foreign to them ─the medical establishment that designs, approves, regulates, and supervises the process─ “transitioning,” because transsexualism uses it as if though a transitive verb, makes no sense at all. It is a fallacy even at the grammatical level. Furthermore, it is materially and functionally impossible to transition into a state of “gender-less-ness.” So that, every time a given Foucauldian medical subject attempts to “transition” from one gender, they inevitably end up in another; reality discloses “transsexualism,” like “transgenderism,” as no more than an illusion, a self-imposed lie. So that, this impossibility once again confirms for us that gender is not a “social construction” but a social perception of a natural human phenomenon.
Your mother— She will one day also see the need to call your attention to the consequentiality of a whole society unquestionably embracing the trans self- delusion regarding sex and gender. It has by now become emmeshed in the political consciousness of the American nation, which is the result of, on the one hand, the demo-liberal and “progressive” cultural strategies which have prevailed over common sense. And on the one hand, it is the consequence too of the indolence, indifference, and ignorance of American Conservatives. For, to insist on a favorite leitmotif of my writing, because they care so little for culture, American Conservatives do not understand much concerning cultural strategies. That has made it possible that they keep losing the nation at the same rate that they keep winning elections— when and if they do.
Thanks to this absurd synergic collaboration, what since time immemorial used to be known as “woman” is progressively getting superseded, as the bio-social functionality of women is, through consistent juridical and political de-legitimating motions, being transferred to the Foucauldian medical subject. That is, the college-acquired psychological capability for self-delusion is being foisted over through the laws on the whole of society and its institutions. Society is thus becoming self-delusional, too.
The most prominent example of this massive perpetration will someday be presented to you by your mother, herself a woman from when this word had univalent, univocal, indubitable meaning. She will likely say onto you: “While nobody seems to have any doubts concerning what the conceptual reference of the word "Man" is; of "Woman," the biological socio-functionality is now declared unknowable…” She would be right, your mother. In so saying, she would be hinting at the other cardinal question on this theme— the one transsexualists like Biden for example would never ask.
Which is: If what “Woman” is cannot be decided by human experience and logical reasoning, what is it then that the men who would, would be "transitioning" into— unknowability itself, maybe?
Of Course. It should stand to reason that doing away with the concept "Woman" and the knowability of its biological socio-functionality signifies that nothing can be conceived of, or left for men to trans-gender into. But this is precisely the point: the claim to transitioning, that is, of transsing,” cannot be made on rationality; it is radicalized psychological capability for self-delusion. So, it stands to philosophical reason that in the face of the declared unknowability of what “Woman” is, “transitioning" itself can only attain as something that cannot be known what into. Juicy absurdity. Thus, the proclaimed unknowability of “Woman” leads through a reversibly logic to the unknowability of that which is it said men transition to become. Ironically, this is by far more often than no confirmed by the living picture of pseudo-transitioned “men,” and by the same token, of pseudo-transitioned “women.” For, we do not always can tell what the hell we are looking at in what we are seeing pass us by on the streets.
The cleverest of women she is— your mother.