Thursday, July 14, 2022

In Its Refusal to Define "Woman", the Church of England Establishes a New Low Watermark in the Ebb of Western Civilization

 In response to the question “What is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?” Bishop Robert Innes, on behalf of the Church's governing body, said:

“There is no official definition [but that] the Living In Love and Faith project ... has begun to explore the complexities associated with gender identity and points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.”

Which is absurd. 

A woman was, is and always will a human able to produce an ovum, and to host a fertilized ovum until the moment of parturition. 

Accordingly, a woman possesses ovaries, a womb, and a vagina permitting both impregnation and child delivery. 

Yes, in both women and in men, there can be anatomical or physiological abnormalities that may prevent an individual expressing the reproductive potential of their sex. Nevertheless, in the majority of cases, sex is clearly defined in the genome: a woman has two X chromosomes but no Y chromosome, whereas a man has a Y chromosome, but only one X chromosome. 

Again, there can be abnormalities. Some women have three X chromosomes, and some men have an X and two Y chromosomes. But still the presence or absence of the Y chromosome dictates whether the anatomy is functionally male or female.

It should be added that there are genetic abnormalities affecting sexual characteristics more subtle than the presence of extra chromosomes. For example, a gene coding for the hormone testosterone, the masculinizing hormone, may be transposed from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome, with the result that a person without a Y chromosome, though functionally female, may be more or less masculinized in such features as muscularity and the production of the feminizing hormone estrogen. 

 But whatever the physical determinants of gender, it may be claimed that a person without a Y chromosome may have a male mentality and thus a wish to dress, live and behave like a man, while conversely, a person with a Y chromosome may have a female mentality and wish to dress, live and behave like a woman. Who, then, is to say that the presence or absence of particular features of the reproductive anatomy are more important than the presence or absence of particular features of the personality?

The answer to that question should surely be this: if a person who is functionally male wishes to live as a female, or a person who is functionally female wishes to live as a male, why should anyone object, provided only that, in the impersonation of the opposite sex, the transsexual individual does not hurt others who might be misled by the impersonation.

And yes, we know, that by transplantation of organs and glands and surgical removal or reconstruction of various parts of the anatomy, a man may give birth to a child. So is such a man actually a woman? Well, who but the individual concerned and those near and dear to them actually cares. Obviously, as a matter kindness and civility, why would one dispute the adopted sexual role and identity of such a person. But because a person has undergone an extreme surgical makeover, does not alter their original biology, or the facts that distinguish male from female. Or as the great Scotch poet Robbie Burns said, "A man's a man for a' that". 

What is evil, immensely so, is propaganda directed at children by transgender advocates with the aim of persuading confused and inexperienced young people that they should undergo surgical and hormonal treatment to change their gender. Such advocacy should be criminalized and severely punished. Jordan Peterson explains why:

Jordan Peterson -- Doctors, Psychotherapists, Liars and Butchers:


  1. I don't see why we have to turn this into a right-left vexed question.

    The medical "profession" with its staunch ally the pharmaceutical companies can turn a pretty penny making a mess turning boys into girls, girls into boys, keeping boys turned into girls girls, and so on. Forgive me for not working out all the potential permutations and combinations available...For endless profit.

    I think the left sees this sly emphasis on profit-seeking as the right's position. What the conservatives are always seeking to do. To exploit. The left sees itself as being pro-choice. Your boy thinks he'd be happier and more free being a girl? Chop it off! ( $100K bill? No problem! No sacrifice too great, no burden too heavy, in the cause of freedom.)

    1. Yes. But why so much effort to force acceptance of the bullshit?. Has Western society become insane, or is there a mighty effort underway to drive Western society insane?

    2. They have to get people to the point where they have no critical faculty or historical consciousness. To a point where everyone does what they are told, in a state of complete, abject acceptance to the ruling orders.

      The CIA was the organization initially interested in experimenting with LSD precisely because of its powers to override the conscious, judging, and critical mind. If I recall correctly, LSD was judged to have too many unwanted side effects, at least from the point of view of the CIA.

      In the meantime, too many people involved in the experimentation found these unwanted side effects rather entertaining and exciting. Among them, Ken Kesey and Timothy Leary. Kesey was, remarkably, one of the test subjects, at Stanford University. (Stanford was used, but it was the CIA, not Stanford scientists, behind the work.)

      Leary was at Harvard. It never seemed to bother any of the hipsters Leary was conducting his experiments using prisoners. (Leary has all the markings of a CIA tool.)

      It also never seemed to bother the hipsters, the acid tests in San Francisco involved giving LSD in Dixie cups to people who had no idea what they were taking or what it could do to them. And from there-- LSD went everywhere.

      One way or the other, it did look as if the effort to drive everyone insane was already underway. Retrospectively, they did not exactly go insane, but there was some kind of downgrading of human intellect and ability to be self-governing. So the CIA did get at least part of what they wanted. You lose the perseverance and intellectual discipline to be self-govern, and self-government SNAP! is taken away.

    3. "They have to get people to the point where they have no critical faculty or historical consciousness."

      I guess that's right. But dosing everyone with LSD seems a crazy solution.
      And as we now see, the university does a better job, permanently warping the brains of all who pass the college filter for political correctness.

    4. Why would LSD ever be considered?

      I think the university is a pretty cool idea. It can't be perverted.

    5. Those military experiments with LSD seem dumb. I thought the purpose of the military was to kill the enemy, not make them giggle.

    6. As for the university, you really think University of Cambridge Chancellor and former Trudeau Foundation caretaker, Stephen, All-opinions-should-be-respected, Toope who evidently respects that woman at George Washington University who said all white males should be castrated and their genitals fed to swine, is not perverting the university.

      Yes, there are still good people in the university but the failure of the academics to keep university administration in their own hands means a continual moral and intellectual corruption of higher education.

  2. I can one up you on associate professor Christine Fair: I've got Valerie Solanas.

    Author of the SCUM Manifesto, this is the woman who attempted to murder Andy Warhol.

    SCUM = Society for the Cutting UP of Men.

    This crap goes back to the very origins of American feminism. Feminism isn't about liberating women. It is about "liberating" the anger of females. ( They don't deserve to be called women.) Their hatred. All that is most base in any human, male or female.

    This virulent form is generally restricted to rather privileged white women, too.

    It was a miracle Warhol survived. Solanas served three years. Didn't R. Kelly just get sentenced to thirty-five?

    I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Christine Fair would acknowledge her indebtedness to the pioneering work of Solanas.

    The National Review extended a courtesy to Christine Fair. The article you linked said, "She shouldn’t be fired. But she should be condemned." I agree with this. You don't pervert the university by being an idiot associate professor "the cat dragged in." The university isn't such a bad place for experiments in idiocy and perversion. It is the perfect place. There is not the slightest prestige in being a professor, of any grade. It does not mean you're smarter than others, or know more.

    1. "There is not the slightest prestige in being a professor, of any grade. It does not mean you're smarter than others, or know more."

      That is largely, though not yet entirely, true -- today. But in the not so distant past professors were, in many cases, intelligent people with a real commitment to scholarship. However, a decline in the general level of ability and scholarly commitment among academics has been the inevitable consequence of expanding the university system to accommodate anyone with a measurable IQ and the the means to pay, or the readiness to borrow, the remarkable high cost of what, for many, is simply a university vacation. The result has been a demand for professors far in excess of the availability of true scholars.

      Yes, I never came across that Valerie Solanas -- thank God.

  3. What I meant to say was the authority of professors would be based only on the quality of their thought and scholarship, not on their being professors. I don't consider this kind of authority to be the same as any other authority; when the chips are down, it gets brushed aside.

    People send their children to expensive universities to assure their future. Not necessarily to get an education. (I think it is dumb anyway, because coming out of this expensive university they are mired in debt, and thus marred. Someone was sharing with me the debt burden of recently-graduated lawyers, and I was appalled. A few years out of law school, many were more than a million in debt.)

    The various gatekeepers and people who will grade their children have the enormous power to withhold or grant a "bright future". This is a spurious prestige and authority from my point of view. It is illegitimate.

    The most genius level of thought usually does not confer prestige. (I would say this continues today, except we do have a few great talents who become celebrities, our form of "prestige".) Isaac Newton lectured to empty rooms at Cambridge.

    I just meant the professors get their posteriors kissed by what are careerists, not scholars in the making . They are heeded because they have the title and the degrees. The society is credentialist.

    1. "People send their children to expensive universities to assure their future. Not necessarily to get an education."


      In the UK the private schools, Eton College and a handful of others, serve the same purpose. Oxford and Cambridge not so much nowadays as they adopt class-based entry quotas and employ fools like the Trudeau-connected Chancellor Toope to turn them into PC indoctrination camps.

      I'm working on a piece -- not sure if it will ever be finished -- on how the social function of the great private American university corrupts the educational process.