Got my vote -- might even be worth a subscription to read it, not that you at least are much into listening to unorthodox opinions on the matter.
But if you and/or Eva do so then you might consider emphasizing whether you subscribe to the view that "gender" and "gender identity ideology" are rather different kettles of fish. FYI and FWIW, you might note that Genspect more or less endorses that dichotomy, and gives some credence to the former at least even if much of their whole argument or "thesis" is rather incoherent or untenable at best:
For example, their Glossary definition for "gender":
Genspect: "Once used interchangeably with ‘sex’ to mean male or female. Now denotes a person’s social or cultural status as masculine, feminine or something else."
Think you're still stuck on the old definition or perspective. But perfectly reasonable to DEFINE "gender" as masculine or feminine personality traits, behaviours, and roles.
However, while their summation of "gender identity ideology" is somewhat useful, at least as point of reference for discussion purposes, it also betrays a profoundly unscientific definition for the sexes:
Genspect: "4.2 A new ideology: gender identity Gender identity ideology is a set of beliefs, principles, and values. According to this theory, gender identity, first conceptualized by clinicians such as Robert Stoller, Ralph Greenson and John Money (Byrne, 2023; Janssen, 2023; Money, 1994), relates to an individual’s internal sense of being male or female. ....
Gender Identity Ideology Theory:
∙ Sex is not binary (there are more than two sexes)
∙ Intersex people prove that sex is not binary
∙ The sex binary is a social construction
∙ Sex is not an essential property of a person; it can be changed through surgical, medical, legal, or social intervention
∙ We learn to identify our sex/gender through introspection (as we do our sexual orientation)"
Whatever else might be said against "gender identity ideology" -- a great deal, in fact -- the facts of the matter are that the sex binary IS a social construction, and that, at least by the standard biological definitions, neither "male" nor "female" are "essential properties of a person" -- some third of us, at any one time, are neither, are sexless. You might actually try reading some biological, logical, and philosophical underpinnings of the biological definitions:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless. If that's the case then it's simply incoherent, and quite unscientific, to insist that "male" and "female" are "essential properties of a person".
"... I got to see my name in print in a real-life physical published book! ..."
Almost as good as your picture on the cover of The Rolling Stone ... 😉🙂 But congrats. Kind of a nice feeling -- I once had an article published in a computer hobbyist journal, and my name published in Hansard as a result of my letter to a Reform MP, though both were several decades ago.
In any case, when you're in Ottawa you might want to look up Conservative MPs Karen Vecchio, Conservative Shadow Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, and Rick Perkins, Conservative Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry, particularly given that the Conservatives had passed several "anti-gender ideology resolutions" which I believe you had commented on earlier:
I had written to Perkins about a month ago, copy to Vecchio, asking whether he might rattle Statistic Canada's cage over a submission that I had sent them on their rather "misguided" call for "consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards". No response yet from either -- bit disappointed on that score -- and will have to follow-up with them next week. Details and link to my submission in this post of mine:
But I might consider publishing my letter to them as an open letter, particularly if it might help "The Cause", and if I don't get much satisfaction from them -- "gender ideology" may not be high on their list of priorities and neither may have subscribed to those party resolutions.
We have to review it!
Got my vote -- might even be worth a subscription to read it, not that you at least are much into listening to unorthodox opinions on the matter.
But if you and/or Eva do so then you might consider emphasizing whether you subscribe to the view that "gender" and "gender identity ideology" are rather different kettles of fish. FYI and FWIW, you might note that Genspect more or less endorses that dichotomy, and gives some credence to the former at least even if much of their whole argument or "thesis" is rather incoherent or untenable at best:
https://genspect.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Gender-Framework-Draft-One.pdf
For example, their Glossary definition for "gender":
Genspect: "Once used interchangeably with ‘sex’ to mean male or female. Now denotes a person’s social or cultural status as masculine, feminine or something else."
Think you're still stuck on the old definition or perspective. But perfectly reasonable to DEFINE "gender" as masculine or feminine personality traits, behaviours, and roles.
However, while their summation of "gender identity ideology" is somewhat useful, at least as point of reference for discussion purposes, it also betrays a profoundly unscientific definition for the sexes:
Genspect: "4.2 A new ideology: gender identity Gender identity ideology is a set of beliefs, principles, and values. According to this theory, gender identity, first conceptualized by clinicians such as Robert Stoller, Ralph Greenson and John Money (Byrne, 2023; Janssen, 2023; Money, 1994), relates to an individual’s internal sense of being male or female. ....
Gender Identity Ideology Theory:
∙ Sex is not binary (there are more than two sexes)
∙ Intersex people prove that sex is not binary
∙ The sex binary is a social construction
∙ Sex is not an essential property of a person; it can be changed through surgical, medical, legal, or social intervention
∙ We learn to identify our sex/gender through introspection (as we do our sexual orientation)"
Whatever else might be said against "gender identity ideology" -- a great deal, in fact -- the facts of the matter are that the sex binary IS a social construction, and that, at least by the standard biological definitions, neither "male" nor "female" are "essential properties of a person" -- some third of us, at any one time, are neither, are sexless. You might actually try reading some biological, logical, and philosophical underpinnings of the biological definitions:
"What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Wiley Online Library [WOL]:
"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless. If that's the case then it's simply incoherent, and quite unscientific, to insist that "male" and "female" are "essential properties of a person".
Ottawa is lovely. Do you ice skate? It’s possible the canal will be open for skating, which is well worth checking out.
That would be wonderful! :) This won't be until late winter but hopefully it's still open when I get there!
"... I got to see my name in print in a real-life physical published book! ..."
Almost as good as your picture on the cover of The Rolling Stone ... 😉🙂 But congrats. Kind of a nice feeling -- I once had an article published in a computer hobbyist journal, and my name published in Hansard as a result of my letter to a Reform MP, though both were several decades ago.
In any case, when you're in Ottawa you might want to look up Conservative MPs Karen Vecchio, Conservative Shadow Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, and Rick Perkins, Conservative Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Industry, particularly given that the Conservatives had passed several "anti-gender ideology resolutions" which I believe you had commented on earlier:
https://tnc.news/2023/09/09/cpc-gender-ideology/
I had written to Perkins about a month ago, copy to Vecchio, asking whether he might rattle Statistic Canada's cage over a submission that I had sent them on their rather "misguided" call for "consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards". No response yet from either -- bit disappointed on that score -- and will have to follow-up with them next week. Details and link to my submission in this post of mine:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
But I might consider publishing my letter to them as an open letter, particularly if it might help "The Cause", and if I don't get much satisfaction from them -- "gender ideology" may not be high on their list of priorities and neither may have subscribed to those party resolutions.
Wish I could be with you in Ottawa, but I'm in Portland, Oregon which is a bit too far away.
Congratulations! What a fantastic accomplishment. =)
Hm, I've never been to Ottawa...