It's rare that a one liner can cut to the heart of a controversy (and expose the emptiness of one side of it) but the simple question "What is a woman?" puts the issue in a clear light. If someone can't answer this, how can she answer the question "What is a car?" or "What is a house?"
I agree that the often irreversible effects on the body from these kinds of procedures needs to be emphasized more than it is. However, it seems to me that concerns about altering the body (as important as they are) take a third place of importance behind the question of what's morally right and what's rationally sound.
Excellent article, Mike. It's ludicrous that a Supreme Court nominee is unable to tell us what a woman is and even more ludicrous that she thinks she has to be a biologist in order to pass judgment on what a woman is. Your analogy to Orwell's 1984 is a bullseye.
I agree with your logic and the argument. However I think it only preaches to the choir. The next approach should be the biological one. What does injecting hormones into a body to change sexes actually do to the body......Short term and long term. If I I was ever to think about changing sexes.....the logic that you expressed in the article would have little effect. But if I knew I was possibly doing physical damage to my body....it would make me stop and think....Could I possibly get some type of auto immune disease from this or possibly cancer?
It's rare that a one liner can cut to the heart of a controversy (and expose the emptiness of one side of it) but the simple question "What is a woman?" puts the issue in a clear light. If someone can't answer this, how can she answer the question "What is a car?" or "What is a house?"
I agree that the often irreversible effects on the body from these kinds of procedures needs to be emphasized more than it is. However, it seems to me that concerns about altering the body (as important as they are) take a third place of importance behind the question of what's morally right and what's rationally sound.
Excellent article, Mike. It's ludicrous that a Supreme Court nominee is unable to tell us what a woman is and even more ludicrous that she thinks she has to be a biologist in order to pass judgment on what a woman is. Your analogy to Orwell's 1984 is a bullseye.
I agree with your logic and the argument. However I think it only preaches to the choir. The next approach should be the biological one. What does injecting hormones into a body to change sexes actually do to the body......Short term and long term. If I I was ever to think about changing sexes.....the logic that you expressed in the article would have little effect. But if I knew I was possibly doing physical damage to my body....it would make me stop and think....Could I possibly get some type of auto immune disease from this or possibly cancer?