Girl, Interrupted: or let’s talk about logic again
August 11, 2008
The Transgenderism Deconstruction series is temporarily being interrupted to briefly discuss a few problems which are affecting how the ensuing discussions are stymied. Basically, it’s just another homophobic rant, in other words (sarcasm!).
“This does nothing but support feminism, because sexism becomes demonstrably wrong by simple observation of the existence of transgendered people as they describe themselves when you really listen to them.”
That is a very common sentiment expressed by the transgendered. And the typical rebuttal is that they are not sitting happily in the middle of the continuum; the transgendered are moving from one position (labeled “manly man“) on the gender continuum with the specific purpose of reaching some other position (labeled “girl”), thus maintaining the binary.
At the risk of detracting from the main point, sitting on the fulcrum would be a man wearing a dress, which is why the cross–dressers who make no claim to “be a real woman” are actually exhibiting more authentic gender transgressive behavior than the transsexuals. It is the cross–dressers who are the genuine article, and we should celebrate their work in breaking down gender barriers. Though it should be noted I’m not referencing drag queens, who simply are the equivalent of white people in blackface with their over–the–top satirical presentation.
That particular idea in italics is repudiated frequently by radical feminists, but the transgendered supporters rarely if ever address the response. Why is this, do you suppose? Can it be they have no answer?
People are looking at the process of transitioning and exclaim, “oh look this process proves gender is fluid after all!” Except where on earth did anybody get the idea that a process is more important than the result? There is no reason to ignore the result, unless the person doesn’t like the answer.
Process is not result.
Cause is not effect.
A cake baking in the oven proves what? It proves you want a final product. But sometimes the half–baked dough can’t afford the energy required to complete the process or lacks the nerve to complete the process — and this too is supposedly “proof” that gender is fluid.
I have no doubt that gender is fluid; feminists have spent decades proving this by showing how females are capable of male work, but the process of transitioning does not prove gender is fluid.
In logical arguments, it is possible to start out with a correct premise (ie “gender is fluid”) and still get an incorrect result. The conclusion must follow logically from the premise, not just tacked on because you like the answer.
Processes do not prove premises. Only results do that. If we are going to say that processes prove our assertions, then results don’t matter. We are saying that the process is more important then the result, which is just incredibly ignorant. We care about the process because of the results, not the other way around.
When does it become appropriate to focus on the process? That would only become appropriate AFTER it has been determined that the result follows logically from the premise, AND that there are multiple processes to choose from which will give the same result. The only time we care about the process itself is when we are eliminating unethical or harmful processes.
Transitioning doesn’t qualify.