“That’s because persons of ordinary intelligence — indeed preschoolers — can look and see who is…
Siobhan O'leary
1

This has nothing to do with Mr. Trump, who has his own issues and is unfit to be President. I did not vote for him. But I trusted Mrs. Clinton, which is why I did not vote for her — I profoundly disagree with her position on abortion and religious liberty, among other issues.

But, back to the discussion: “male” has an objective biological definition, and “female” does as well. Transgenderism seems to come straight from the University of Moscow School of History, and seems to be a denial of objective reality. Undoubtedly the feelings and emotions of those suffering from gender dysphoria are very real. But we ought to get to the bottom of the concurrent mental pathologies, and to deal with other issues, before we start drugging and slicing and dicing.

I reject transgender theory because it’s not the simplest explanation from the data, and it butchers the language with its horrible wordiness. In fact, I read some gender theorists, and they cannot write a coherent, comprehensive English sentence — it’s all jargon gobbletygook. “Assigned the male gender at birth” is just plain stupid: the famous Miss Jenner (and Miss Jennings as well) was born male, decided to present as a female and had the work done, and is literally, by retention of a certain residual maleness, “transgender.”

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.