This chapter is called Science and Sex. The “science” as you will see is, to put it mildly, contested.
Rothblatt begins with this quote which is interesting because this entire book is built on belief not empiricism.
He opens with a discussion of Thomas Kuhn who talked about how new knowledge is created by a fracturing of belief in existing knowledge; resulting in a paradigm shift. What Rothblatt is pushing is an end to the “belief” in sexual dimorphism and establishing the primacy of “gender identity”. Notice this common rhetorical trick from Rothblatt, 👇the conflation of two different issues, belief in the fact of sexual dimorphism; does NOT mean a belief in two “mental natures”. These are separate topics.
Kuhn did correctly identify a flaw in academia, where young researchers are reluctant to engage in work that criticises their seniors and older academics resist a new paradigm; which could undermine their own body of work. Rothblatt knows what he is doing because he promotes the idea that this area of research offers “interesting” opportunities for young researchers to create “new knowledge”. He also uses “revolutionary” which is an attractive buzzword to the young.
This is the new paradigm that Rothblatt seeks to embed. Notice that he wishes to disassociate reproduction from the female sex class and promote a new model of “sociotechnical” means. He is, of course, a supporter of surrogacy and developments experimenting to manipulate science to enable the possibility to outsource motherhood and even to allow males to gestate a child.
Another trick he uses, somewhat repetitively, is to equate sex separated spaces with segregation of the races. This is a common tactic used by Nancy Kelley who called Lesbians, unwilling to date penis-havers, “sexual racists”. It was also used by David Lammy during the passing of the Gender Recognition Act, in the U.K.
He also puts the cart before the horse; claiming separation of the sexes allows women to be treated as inferior. In reality, single sex spaces were hard won women’s rights activists to enable women to participate in public life and end the “urinary leash”.
Bearing in mind Rothblatt campaigns to end the collection of sex based data in the census he is not afraid to use census based data to advance his arguments. The wording here is odd, almost as if he is suggesting female infanticide is to save girls from the sad fate of being a woman. In reality females are aborted / murdered because males are prized over females.
In common with a lot of people, who’s critical thinking has been corrupted by queer theory and post modernist ideas that, crudely, “language shapes reality”. He genuinely believes that if we do away the labels male and female then sexism will cease to exist. At the same time we will be unable to track this because data will cease to be collected. This has already started to have consequences in, for example, crime statistics where male sex offenders are having their crimes recorded under the female category.
Rothblatt again draws parallels with sexist science claiming female brains were different and inferior. Once again there are feminist neuro-biologists who have attacked much of the purported “science” of lady brain. Personally I think it is unlikely that there are no differences but certainly much of the research is built on flimsy foundations. Cordelia Fine debunks a lot of this research as does Gina Rippon. It is also worth noting that many trans-activists claim that there is such a thing as a “female brain” and it can “accidentally” land in a male body.
As always Martin cherry picks the research to undermine the notion of two sexes. His argument is that because some women can do maths or read a map then biological sex doesn’t exist.
Having set up this straw man Rothblatt proceeds to argue sexual dimorphism cannot explain female mathematicians so we need a new paradigm based on the idea sex exists on a continuum.
The problem is that Rothblatt thinks if we stop calling men male this will eradicate male aggression. This is magical thinking. Until the sex offending class stop being responsible for 99% of sex offences this idea is madness. 👇
So what does Martine propose to replace sex categories with? Unbelievably it is this idea.
Here is a handy chart that he includes.
Seriously! Now might be a good idea to post another quote from Rothblatt from this chapter.
Good luck with this endless navel gazing claptrap.
The above table speaks volumes about Rothblatt’s internal psyche. He seems to have retained the same dualism aggressive versus nurturing of every sexist man ever. He is leaving the categories intact! (See Janice Raymond on this, in my series on Transsexual Empire).
Oh, honey it really isn’t realistic and “ungenitally infected” WTF! 😳.
Finally he links this all back to project transhumanism. He anticipates “some” people will be resistant to trans humans just as there will be *some* people resistant to the eradication of the sexes. Yep. There will be, resistance is building.
Just to contextualise this quote it comes from a man asked to define pornography and he said he couldn’t “but I know it when I see it.
If you want to tip the balance in favour of women and against these crazy billionaires you can donate here: