Women vs. “Transwomen”: Cultural Death Match

Women vs. Transwomen Cultural Death Match
Written By Laurie Higgins“Sex-rejector”: Human who rejects his or her objective, immutable biological sex
“Proverts”: Those who affirm and promote perversity as good

Tacoma “trans” sideshow
Get your popcorn, pick a seat, and watch the circus sideshow that just took place in Tacoma, Washington, where a group seeking to find a negotiated settlement between women on one side of an absurdist cultural divide and sex-rejectors and proverts on the other. In this sideshow, proverts shriek obscenities at women who don’t want men in their showers and call their shrieking civil disobedience.
In between hurling epithets and obscenities at women who want nothing more than a modicum of privacy in which to engage in private activities, sex-rejectors and proverts scream “Transwomen are women.”
Actually, they’re not.
Are “transwomen” women?
“Transwomen” are men who want to be women and masquerade as women via wearing women’s clothing, jewelry, make-up, and/or hairstyles and having their bodies artificially altered. They are no more in reality women than 60-year-old women who wear the clothing and hairstyles of 25-year-olds and have their bodies artificially altered are in reality 25-year-old women. And it is no more hateful to say sex-rejecting men are not women than it is to say that a 5’7” white man is not a 6’5” Chinese woman—even if he really, really, really wants to be one. Reality exists, and affirming it is not hate speech.
As “progressives” have relentlessly averred, sex and “gender identity” are two wholly distinct phenomena. Sex is an objective, immutable, scientifically verifiable phenomenon, whereas “gender identity” refers to a person’s feelings about their sex. The vast majority of people accept their sex, and a minority wish they were the opposite sex. “Gender identity” is a rhetorical and social construction created to give existential heft to immaterial desire.
 “Gender,” sex, and safety
Sex-rejectors and proverts claim their central concern is the safety of sex-rejectors. Male sex-rejectors rightly claim they are at risk if they go into men’s restrooms and locker rooms masquerading as women. Of course, in the service of their safety, they could choose not to masquerade as women. “Progressives” argue that clothing, hairstyles, jewelry, and makeup are arbitrary social conventions imposed oppressively on men and women starting at birth and based on their objective sex. If that’s the case, then there is no reason for men who wish they were women to adopt these oppressive, arbitrary. socially constructed conventions. In fact, by acquiescing to these conventions, don’t sex-rejectors merely reinforce the very stereotypes against which they rebel? In the service of safety, why not reject the arbitrary social conventions associated with the sex they wish they were?
Leftists say that biological sex per se is meaningless. In their view, nothing necessarily derives from it. Modesty and the desire for privacy have no intrinsic connection to biological sex per se. There is no need to respect it even in private facilities. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that those who believe that feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy are inextricably linked to biological sex se are the equivalent of racists. In other words, those who believe that biological sex is imbued with meaning are ignorant bigots. If that’s the case, then why do sex-rejectors demand to use opposite-sex facilities? What’s the big deal about the sex of the persons with whom they shower? If—to them—physical embodiment as male or female is ultimately meaningless, and if—to them—all outward expressions of maleness and femaleness are arbitrary social conventions, then why can’t sex-rejectors use the private facilities that correspond to their sex, thereby respecting the feelings of those who believe biological sex per se has meaning?
If objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic meaning, and if the outward expressions of sex that all societies develop to recognize, reinforce, and celebrate sex differences (i.e., gender) are arbitrary, socially constructed and meaningless, then are fake breasts, vaginas, and penises meaningless constructions as well? And if they’re not meaningless, if they have meaning related in part to modesty and physical privacy, why should restroom-usage correspond to fake bodies as opposed to real bodies?
Moreover, if fake breasts, penises, and vaginas have no more intrinsic meaning than real breasts, vaginas, and penises, then why construct them? Why go through the pain and expense of removing and adding body parts? And why these particular body parts? What’s so special and meaningful about breasts, vaginas, and penises? Why not be creative and invent new decorative, non-functioning body parts? Why do sex-rejectors who believe that biological sex per se has no meaning and who believe that social conventions associated with sex are ultimately arbitrary, oppressively imposed social conventions feel the need to remain so narrowly embodied within the binary?
True “trans” goal
In addition to choosing not to masquerade as the opposite sex, sex-rejectors could also use family restrooms in stores and restaurants and shower at home rather than at health clubs in order to better protect their safety. That they reject all these options reveals what their real goal is. Their real goal is to remove all cultural signifiers of the existence and meaning of objective, immutable biological sex. This goal requires restructuring grammar, censoring speech, and eradicating sex-segregation everywhere. And it requires universal compliance with their draconian cultural edicts.
The exaltation of subjectivism and autonomy has brought us to this cultural precipice. Sex-rejectors believe subjective feelings and their autonomous will—not biology—determine sex. And sex-rejectors believe they alone have the right to decide the criterion that determines whether humans are entitled to physical privacy. They proclaim that physical privacy should be accorded to humans based not on their sex but on their feelings about their sex. Other humans demur.
When a lesbian panelist in the Tacoma sideshow says she doesn’t want to shower next to a swinging “d**k,” a provert commands her to “shower at home.” Why can’t those instructions be given to sex-rejectors who don’t want to shower with persons of their same sex? Why should the desire to be the opposite sex supersede sex in private areas?
The manifest contradictions that inhere the sex-rejecting movement reveal the truth that biological sex matters. Sex rejectors unwittingly testify to the profound importance and desirability of sex differences when they endure painful surgeries and sterility-causing cross-sex hormone-doping and refuse to use restrooms and showers with persons of their same sex. Societies provide sex-separated facilities in which private activities related to intimate bodily functions and undressing take place because biological sex per se matters.