I spend a good deal of my time dodging projectiles hurled with churlish intent. It can crystallize the vision.
Can someone tell me, please, where I go wrong with the following:
- John (not his real name) comes up to me and tells me that he’s a woman.
- I know John, and from having been his teammate in baseball, I know that he possesses the usual set of male reproductive equipment.
- John has a deep voice, a man’s beard, and the general form of a man: narrower hips, wider shoulders, Adam’s apple, etc.
- I presume that John has a chemical mix in his body that would be typical of a man. They’re different, you know — the chemical mix of a woman from that of a man. Measurably different.
- Furthermore, John has four children(!), all produced in the usual way, and for each of whom, John donated the male DNA package necessary to produce said children.
- Yet, there’s John, looking me in the eye, and insisting he’s really a woman.
- I look at John and, because I’m public scenes-averse, I merely nod, and mumble something noncommittal, like “Mmm hmmm.”(1)
But wait… there’s more.
- Now the media take up John’s story and blast it throughout the land. They call John “she” and say that they’re telling “her” story, as if it is a proven conclusion that John, the father of four is, actually, a woman.
- Still more bizarrely, if you (or I, of course), express any skepticism whatsoever about this notion of John’s, you or I are bigots, and cruel, retrograde … ignorant louts, deserving of all the scorn, and derision normally reserved for such as the Ku Klux Klan, and segregationists, and Jim Crow supporters, and other offshoots of Hillary Clinton’s Democrat Party(2).
Now, to the notion that I have. I wonder whether you can find some way to disabuse me of it:
Is there anything at all — besides John’s insistence — to indicate that John is a woman? Anything?(3)
You might note that I put forward some rather persuasive evidence that, despite his apparently sincere insistence, John’s really a man. To wit:
- Male equipment
- Narrower hips
- Wider shoulders
- Adam’s apple
- Deep voice
- Chemical mix
- Oh, and four kids produced in the usual way.
- One more quick thing — a brief thought experiment: Let’s hypothesize that immediately after John tells me all this, he’s struck by a bolt of lightning and dies, leaving me as the only one ever to hear his newly-revealed thoughts. What sex would the coroner circle on the death certificate, and how certain would that coroner be of his conclusion?(4)
So, with all that, what is John — a man or a woman? More to the point: why, if we greet John’s revelation with skepticism, are you and/or I, bigots, and retrograde, ignorant louts?
Just between you ‘n me and the lamppost, John sounds … confused.
It happens, ya know.
Confusion makes people say the oddest things. And, I defy you to tell me something more confusing than … sex. Look: anyone who’s not confused by sex is just not normal. Anyone who’s not confused by simple man-woman relations isn’t normal!
Some intriguing side thoughts: there are Americans out in the world, who are in a whole lot more danger than anything I might encounter. Americans who risk life and limb, each moment of each day, so that people like John can, in the luxury of their calm, quiet home, agonize over the odd contradiction between that thing dangling between their legs and their wacky, out-in-left-field maundering that they might really be a woman.
I’m 6’4″ tall; do I get to claim to be a short dude? Does that mere claim make it true? If you look at me and call hogwash on me, does that make of you a bigot and a lout?
What if I claim to be — identify as– a billionaire? Are you a retrograde, ignorant nincompoop if you don’t treat me like one?
As I said, there are things that can crystallize the vision.
So, just one more time, ’cause I’d really like to know whether there actually does exist such a thing:
Is there anything at all — besides John’s insistence — to indicate that John is a woman? Anything?
(1) Instead of the — “Are you OUT OF YOUR FREAKIN’ MIND?!?” — that I rightly should have done. 🙂
(2) Yep. All were groups, or policies. laws or regulations formed or promulgated by the American Democrat Party.
(3) Science? Plainly not biology. Here, plainly, is where two sciences are at loggerheads: Biology and Psychology. Why is Psychology the winner in this conflict? Biology deals with facts, and measurements, and the like; Psychology is all — 100% — theory. Yep. I come from a family of psychologists. They all freely admit it. It’s all theory. Why would a science that’s 100% theory carry the day over a science concerned only with facts and knowable, measurable things?
(4) This story is, with enough camouflage to protect the identities of the principals, true. The bolt of lighting is, thank goodness, hypothetical, but John’s four kids are real, and are friends of mine.