The alphabet soup sex set is just trying too hard

I do believe we are at the edge of the beginning of the end of the transgender/87 fluid genders/gender’s-just-a-social-construct wars.

How do I know, when I’m not a biologist (I only play one at HotAir.)? Because I am exceptionally perceptive, and can read the bones.

Believe me, signs are everywhere that the alphabet soup sex folks are in the throes of their last desperate measures to convince the world – and themselves – that the fairy-tale existences that they have tried mightily to carve out for themselves (and mandate the rest of us believe in) are real. What illustrated that so well recently was an article of fiction rebuttal published in something called “The New Statesman,” a liberal U.K. based publication. It was authored by Jaqueline Rose, a British “feminist” writer and professor of humanities, who’d scrawled this steaming pile of drivel by invitation in response to a binary sex advocate’s opposing argument.

It is a blazing example of insipid, incomprehensible “cope” and holy smokes – it is receiving a royal thrashing. I mean, the reaction has been dang near universal and pretty darn delightful.

To assume that “female” is a neutral biological category is historically naive and racially blind. It not only drastically limits the options, but trails ugly histories behind it, writes Jacqueline Rose. https://t.co/yOOx6Y8W3g

— The New Statesman (@NewStatesman) July 27, 2023

The piece itself is paywalled, but some snippets and one really memorable chunk of it has been making the rounds, sending eyebrows through hairlines since yesterday.

For example, this most egregious selection on the origin of the term “female” had me reading the lines 3 times over to see what I was misinterpreting. It turns out, nothing – it stands as is.

What in the wide, wide world of sports? The premise that the term “female” is racially divisive and “trails” an ugly history because some lunatic wants to turn it into yet another dog whistle?

So, not only are we “cis” and “TERFS” – now we get to be racists, too.

Girlfriend, you and your friends are trying too hard.

Even sad old Wiki call sBS on that sob story, and by 500 years for “female.” Crushingly enough, the origin words of “female” have also always meant “WOMAN.” Female isn’t even related to the word for “man” or “male.” We are not “less than a person.” We stand on our own in etymological history.

The word female comes from the Latin femella, the diminutive form of femina, meaning “woman”. It is not etymologically related to the word male, but in the late 14th century the English spelling was altered to parallel that of male.

It is also strictly a binary designation and, sadly for this author, not a racial one.

Jeez Louise, the gibberish.

This racial slur on female is kind of a twist on my reporting about a new dog whistle yesterday. In their disappointment over the Labour leader declaring his belief in WOMAN, a leading U.K. trans group declared he’d spoken the new “anti-trans dog whistle”: ADULT FEMALE

When you have to go looking that hard for a trigger, you should put the gun down and back slowly away.

There are more excerpts available of Prof Rose’s heated prose, none of which which really seem to address the stated purpose of the article series vis-à-vis “sex is binary.” But, as I’m neither an intellectual nor a trans advocate romance writer, you all may be better judges than I.

… ‘What does the whipped-up frenzy about trans identities allow us not to see? The yawning gulf between rich and poor, the escalating brutality of racial and gender inequality, the advancing climate catastrophe..’.

WOOF

As I said, I’m not an intellectual (I don’t even play one at HotAir)

But it appears I’m not longer the lone Luddite.

Just in case you haven’t had this laugh yet https://t.co/Sbc66WEKlF

— Venice Allan (@roseveniceallan) July 28, 2023

Oh, yes. I’m over them, too.

It doesn’t take a blind man in a mountain cave to see that the trans gender/alphabet soup sex movement is on the way out.

The signs are everywhere.