Monday, October 09, 2017

There Will Be A Next

When playing an academic game in class, nothing helped students focus more than to make it “girls vs boys.” At fourteen, masculine and feminine pride was strong and they bore down intensely. When I afterward explained that many feminists insisted there were no differences between males and females other than the obvious physical ones, they were incredulous. “No way,” they’d say. “Are they kidding?”

“No, they’re definitely not kidding,” I’d answer. “Teacher training today ignores differences and insists that boys and girls are the same. Many if not most now believe the only differences are physical and everything else is due to how they’re raised by parents and schools.” That’s when I’d pull out my VHS copy of a 1995 “20-20” episode John Stossel narrated called, “Boys and Girls Are Different: Men, Women and the Sex Difference.” 

Stossel declares his personal belief at the outset, “We’re just born different,” then interviews prominent feminists of the era who disagreed. But first he set it all up by interviewing parents who believed there were no differences beyond the physical and who tried very hard to raise their children accordingly. No matter what they did or didn’t do, boys preferred playing with guns and girls chose dolls. Toy manufacturers also tried marketing traditionally female toys to boys and vice versa, but their efforts failed as well.

Stossel summarized scientific studies documenting sex differences beginning in utero and continuing afterward through most of life, but when he put them to Gloria Steinem she said those studies shouldn’t be done because they kept women down. Then Stossel asked her, “Don’t you think women are by nature better nurturers?”

Bella Abzug

The temperature in the room plummeted as Steinem responded icily: “No. Next question.” There were similarly icy interviews with Bella Abzug and Gloria Allred. My students were affirmed in their belief that Steinem and company were defying common sense. That’s when I’d tell them the next generation of feminists younger than Steinem and Abzug were claiming there were more than two “genders,” a word they were substituting for sex —  that not all humans could be categorized as either male or female.

Gloria Allred

If they were incredulous before, this time they were flabbergasted. They thought I was making it up. “What else is there?” they’d ask.

I explained there were feminists with Hillary Clinton in the US delegation to the 1995 UN Conference on Women in Beijing who argued there were five “genders”: male and female on each end with gay, lesbian, and transexual between them. Some students considered the gay and lesbian categories might be possible but the transexual one was out of the question. Here in 2017, the word “transexual” isn’t used anymore. It’s been replaced by “transgender” in every media stylebook. I believe if I taught the same lesson today students would take it in stride and say, “So what?”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Now I ask myself what’s next, because there will be something — then something else after that. US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) spotted the trend back in 1993, and coined the phrase “defining deviancy down.” Moynihan was one of the last classical liberals in the party that used to have many. He defeated feminist Bella Abzug in the 1976 Democrat primary for the US Senate but was succeeded in that office by feminist Hillary Clinton in 2001. Moynihan wasn’t referring only to criminal matters but to many sociological trends, and the process he identified has accelerated since his death. What was unthinkable only twenty years ago is routine now.

Oh yeah?

After fifteen years, I’d worn out my VHS copy of Stossel’s 20-20 episode. I tried to purchase a replacement but it was nowhere to be found. One male/female difference he spotlighted sticks with me: the distinctly female skill of remembering where things are. A university study in Canada hired students for an experiment in which they were told to wait in a small office for their turn to be called. In it were a desk, a chair, wall hangings, and many other items on the desk. When summoned, they were asked what they remembered seeing in that office.

The males would say, “There was a desk, a chair, and umm…” then struggle to recall anything else. The females, however, would look off into space and say, “There was a desk, a chair, and on the desk was a pink calendar, a blue pencil holder, a tan telephone…” and many other items. “On this wall there was…” and they’d gesture to show each item’s exact location. Researchers stopped them lest go on for an hour.

I remember that study when asking my wife if she’s seen something I cannot find. After she’s told me where to look and I still can’t find it, she’ll say, “If I have to come over there…”

Sound familiar?


Anonymous said...

Gloria Steinem had an abortion. Who would willingly have sex with her?

I just got back from Cape Cod with a visit to Province Town this weekend. Can't say that that experiment is going so well either.

My one question to all the LGBTQ folks is, if your lifestyle is so "natural", why can't you procreate?

Uber_Fritz said...


I taught biology. And, there are undeniable biological differences between the TWO genders. I will make it simple for the readers and mention just one area. I am referring to the endocrine system. Women produce estrogen and progesterone, while men produce primarily testosterone. At the very core, that makes them different. For those who doubt the hormonal differences, then see the following:

I have two grandsons and have watched them develop from birth. My observations with the five-year-old pertain to his interests and I know that his penchant for trucks and mechanical equipment was not influenced by me, my wife, or his parents. Since he was the first, there were no toys of this nature in the house. His election was his own and I cannot see how environmental factors lead to his interests.

Uber_Fritz said...

Oh, by the way, I chuckled at the comment made by Mr. Martel! I'd say precisely the same about "HRC," too!

Brian said...

This again? Your obsessive fascination with gender and homosexuals is just bizarre.

I'm not even sure what the point to whole column was. I don't know much about Steinem so I just looked at some interviews. It's true that she was only begrudgingly admitting to brain differences between the sexes, and I do think she should concede a bit more to the proven science behind it. But as a climate change sceptic you know how hard it sometimes is to do that. I have a feeling you would also be doubtful of any science showing biological differences that hint at not just two pure genders.

I know you always wimp out of questions you can't answer, but I wonder why you use the term feminist for Hillary. Because she fought for equal rights for women? And if so, then why would anybody not a be feminist?

Charles naively wonders "to all the LGBTQ folks is, if your lifestyle is so "natural", why can't you procreate?" Well, for one thing they can, and do, procreate. Not that we need so much procreation. Maybe this "experiment" you refer to is god's way of keeping the population down, who knows?

And back to Tom, yes, I do think your wife needs to come over to you and smack you on the head, and tell you to where to go find your misplaced's back in the 70's I believe.

Anonymous said...

If it were not for people who thought the word feminist was some sort of insult, then there would not be a need for feminists.

Anonymous said...

And if it were not for people who thought like Charles then there would be no need for alliances like LGBTQ.

Tom McLaughlin said...

And if it were not for free thinkers, there would be no need for Thought Police.

Anonymous said...

I HAVE seen..."Equal pay for equal work"
I have NOT seen "Equal time for equal crime"
"Well. you's.....complicated"
California USED prosecute men for palimony, and "...knowingly transmitting herpes to a woman..."
Now? "...knowingly transmitting HIV..." not so much.
Separating an illegal alien mother from her "dreamer", "anchor baby", or "unaccompanied minor refugee" by deportation?
And let's chat about "family" court.
Oh sure, men, women, and in between, are the SAME!...'til they're not.
Sex,gender, religion, nationality,education, race, age, marital status,... ?
(With plenty of room for hyphens)
ALL questions on the Census, and in "...latest scientifically compiled polls for (fill in the blank) show...."

Anonymous said...

It seems that AOL is planning on eliminating A.I.M.* soon. Part of the "open ID" option.
(*The reason for the gobbeldy gook untrackable avatar I have)
I don't "do"...
Live Journal
Mindful that it's NOT MY DIME!
Any planned alternatives to these? I could probably pick one.
"anonymous", Google, Twitter, Facebook, are off the table for me of course.

Anonymous said...

And if it were not for free thinkers, there would be no need for Thought Police.

Huh?? Would a good example of "thought police" be somebody trying to make us think that LGBTQ is not "natural, or somebody trying to make people think that being gay is a choice?

Brian said...

btw, what kind of a creepy person mocks children for thinking that they can play with whatever toy they feel like it, and like any colors that they happen to like?

Would you snatch a toy truck away from your granddaughter? Tease her for wearing blue instead of pink?


Anonymous said...

Liberals, like poor marksman always missing the target. I took the point of the article to point out the continued degradation of our country through the relentless deterioration of the family. God made them male and female, male and female he created them. When you say they were born that way you give them no hope of escaping their sin, you condemn them with an incurable affliction. Of course girls can play with trucks and boys can knit, it’s good for them to try new activities “rounds them out” but those activities are not forbidden by God and most children naturally gravitate back to gender specific activities. Great article.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but god makes lots of gays.

Anonymous said...

There are differences between men and women but not as much as most people think beyond the obvious physical characteristics. Children tend to gravitate to gender specific activities because society pushes them that way. How many times does a child have to have a playmate or a playmates parent make fun of them because they are playing with the wrong toy before they start to avoid playing with gender inappropriate toys? Many times it only takes a stern look. If a boy starts playing with a doll looks up and half of the adults are frowning and then moves and picks up a toy truck and they smile at him, he gets the message pretty quickly. It doesn't have to be on purpose. Children pick up on subtle clues. Operant conditioning, reward wanted behavior with a smile and punish unwanted behavior with a frown.

Society takes a mild tendency towards a certain behavior and reinforces it.

Math scores in the early grade are about the same for boys and girls. There is little or no difference. But as children get older, there are less and less girls interested in math. The main reason is that society pushes girls away from the math and sciences.

The other point is that tendencies of a group mean nothing to the individual. Let's say,you take a hundred children (50 boys and 50 girls) and gave them a test at something then put the scores in order. Lets say that the top 50 scores had 6 more boys than girls and the bottom 50 scores had 6 more girls than boys. But the 1st,4th,7th and 10th children on the list are girls. Should you tell these girls not to try because on average there are less girls that are good at the subject than boys? That's what happens in math and science classes all the time.

That's why teachers are trained to treat boys and girls the same as much as possible. If you assume that girls are bad at math, you may talk a young girl out of studying math who may have been superb at it if she was given the opportunity to excel. Or you might teach a boy that cooking is woman's work and do him a big disservice.

The deterioration of the family from the traditional American pattern of the husband going to work and wife staying home to take care of the family changing has more to do with economics than feminism. What percentage of jobs today pay enough to allow a person to take care of themselves, and their spouses and children in a middle class lifestyle? The union factory jobs that paid well enough to do this started moving overseas in the 1960's.

Many people screaming about family values are the ones that want to take children away from a loving same sex couple and put them back into the orphanage. Family values has come to mean hatred of anyone who doesn't look or act like I do.


Anonymous said...

I also believe there are natural physical/mental/emotional differences between the sexes. In general. The problem is applying them to a specific individual and limiting their choices because of it.

P. C. Poppycock said...

I know an old joke that compares Bela Abzug to a bowling ball, but the punch line is not fit for publishing here.

Instead, I'll post the link to this American Thinker item that attempts to set standards for the use of the classifications "sex" and "gender."

I happened to be at my Doctor's Office last week, and he confirmed that to his knowledge, there have been no breakthroughs in Medical or Biological science that invalidates the long standing reality of humans beginning life as one sex or the other (that's 'binary,' baby), extremely rare physical anomalies aside.

So all the hoop-la in recent decades over gender-identity, gender-expression, and the multitude of variations on the theme don't change the biological realities one iota. The growing number of identified variations in expression and/or identity are therefore creations of our cultural drift, where sociological and psychological priorities swamp objective reality in keeping with the dictates of post-modernism.

We are in an era where realities that don't make us happy or otherwise trigger a sense of "micro-invalidation" can be cast aside in favor of more comforting and "affirming" of one's alternative self-conception.

All of which says that there is no legitimate reason to limit excursions on the J-axis to only variations of human identity. Animal identities seem the next "logical" self-expression frontier that will be imposed upon civil law and those who just wish to be left alone.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Oops....I forgot the AT link:

Tom McLaughlin said...

I believe you've nailed it P.C.

Brian said...

It is obvious that neither Tom nor Poppycock have known family members or friends that are gay and had a real discussion about it with them. They have never met anybody who has told them that they desperately wish that they were NOT gay, wanting to live a "normal" life where they are not frowned upon and told they are sinners.

So your beliefs are very naive, restricted by your own limited experiences.

Anonymous said...

I guess Poppycock's doctor doesn't keep up with all the research:

And I since Poppycock blames "cultural drift" and a bunch of other gobbledygook for gayness, I wonder how he explains homosexuality in animals.

P. C. Poppycock said...


Nothing in my post rationalizes the assertions you just made.

It simply addresses the terminology in play and the consequences of definitions.

Rather than respond as you did, why don't you tell us how you define the two terms?

Just for fun, while you are at it, are we born liberal or conservative or something else? Are we genetically pre-disposed to political identity or expression?

Anonymous said...

How easy it was to "unnail" it. Better search for a new hammer,Tom.

Brian said...

Good question about the liberal/conservative thing, Poppycock. Here is a link that suggests people are pre-disposed to be one or the other.

As for definitionsI would say that ones "sex" refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, sex organs, etc, and "gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine. The online dictionary says :the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

Anonymous said...

Rather than political leanings, I think a more apt comparison is whether or not people are born right handed or left-handed.

Brian said...

Something I am very perplexed about is why people care so much about what others are doing when it comes to gender and sex. Why the big concern in the harmless doings of others? I guess I can understand those that are brainwashed into believing it is a "sin", but those people rarely seem concerned about actually trying to save the "sinners" soul, but seem more hateful and angry. Doesn't seem very Jesus like. The word of Jesus I actually do respect. Homosexuality didn't seem to bother him enough to speak out against it. As for the dopey Leviticus stuff, doesn't he also say “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” So take it with a grain of salt. I can also kind of understand people like Ted Haggard, repressed and self-hating, so they lash out to either hide their identity or some other twisted reason. But why else would any of this bother anybody?

P. C. Poppycock said...

Apparently, jumping to conclusions not supported by comments is an acceptable form of discussion.

That aside, as to the why does anyone care question: we're up to how many recognized gender expressions? Fifty plus?

This is becoming a find yet another variation on a theme so as to be unique. Like looking for new places to put gauges in piercings and seeing how big you can go with them.

Why does anyone care? Ask the "males" at a local college who object to finding tampon dispensers on top of the urinals. At some point, the accommodations being insisted upon, or being made before insistence arrives, are ridiculous.

Brian said...

Can you give me some proof about these tampons being on top of urinals?

And if this IS true....I can see just how huge this problem is!! How do the poor "males" deal with this catastrophe? Do they have to avert their sensitive eyes? My heart goes out to them.

P. C. Poppycock said...

If you think this is a "sensitive eyes" issue, you don't understand the concept of taking things to extremes, and imposing your need for validation upon everyone else. 25% of the Bowdoin student body is making regular use of campus mental health counseling services, overloading their capacity, and looking for more. The list of anxieties troubling these poor "??????s" is beyond troubling. One wonders how many of them are caused by realization that the social justice warriors are turning the campus into bizarro world.

Brian said...

Thanks for the link to the column about what A-holes bigots can be (that WAS the point of the column, right?). And did you really think that the tampons were originally placed onto of the urinals and not in a dispenser elsewhere in the bathroom?

Again....what is the harm these poor "?????s" are causing. it seems that the harm is being done TO them, in the form of boorish, naive and hateful behaviors. Perhaps this is why so many are seeking the help of health services?

Anonymous said...

Shame on the youth of today for fighting for justice! Hurray instead for those brave individuals who had the courage and the moral fortitude to take a stand and vandalize a bathroom! And to hurl courageous words of profanity at those that are "different". They are showing what makes America great! Again!!

P. C. Poppycock said...

You can cheer them all you want. But you are missing the point.

Perhaps you'd rather read the article about an art exhibition featuring used sanitary napkins, and comment on the brave artists. It appears you are all about "social justice," even if you can't define it and its boundaries.

I'd rather you enumerate the complete list of approved and recognized gender identities, and let us know whether the list is open ended, or artificially constrained.

While you're at it, lets not forget the Rachel Dolezal's in the social justice army. Clearly, there is race, there is racial identity, and then racial expression.

Can't wait til society at large is confronted with those variations on the theme. Just another way to "bring us all together."

Brian said...

What's the big deal? If you don't like the art, don't go to the show. Simple.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with "approved" lists of genders, and I don't really care about the genders of others. I'm still not sure why you do.

Not sure what your point is about the wacky Dolezal. If she wasn't fighting for true justice, she is not a "justice warrior".

Relax and live your own life.

Anonymous said...

P.C. seems to be bothered by so many things that are really none of his business and don't concern him, nor have an effect on him.

What piercings people give themselves

What bathrooms tampons are placed in

What gender people feel they are

What art is showing at some gallery

It seems like he is trying to be some sort of social warrior, wanting to impose his views on the rest of society. Relax indeed.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Next thing you know, he'll be "bothered" by drug overdose deaths.

When it should be "who cares?"

Anonymous said...

Uh....simple. When people get hurt, like in drug overdose deaths.

P. C. Poppycock said...

What business is it of yours how they choose to live their life? Or end it?

Anonymous said...

If it was an accidental overdose then they didn't end it on purpose, so it harms them. I care about people getting harmed. If it was on purpose then I believe they have the right to do so. Now that I have answered your question, how about trying to explain how peoples tattoos or the art show or the rest of it is any of your business.

P. C. Poppycock said...

So you want to impose your values about life on other people? I'm pretty sure you do.

Tattoos and art shows and any of the rest of it are not my business in a personal sense, but I reserve and am jealous of the right to comment on them as cultural indicators and what they indicate in the way of societal transition.

I have never spoken to anyone about their tattoos or piercings or hair colors or other eccentricities unless I knew them well and was having a friendly jab session.

P. C. Poppycock said...

PS: one person's "harm" is another person's euphoric departure.

Anonymous said...

"So you want to impose your values about life on other people? I'm pretty sure you do."

What did I say to make you think that? It seems to be a baseless accusation, or a "I know you are but what am I"

But you seem to be writing publicly about how people who don't fit your 2 gender beliefs are doing something wrong. I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting you.

Anonymous said...

"PS: one person's "harm" is another person's euphoric departure."

I don't see how it wouldn't be considered harmful if it was an accidental death.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Define accidental when you're mainlining really serious and dangerous narcotics.

Besides, there are a history of stories of persons committing an apparent act of suicide because they thought they could survive it, and wanted the attention it would bring. And they were wrong....sadly.

Happened to the niece of a close personal friend decades ago.

Anonymous said...

If someone doesn't mean to kill themselves then it is obviously accidental. Like in the case of your friend's niece, a horrible, sad and tragic accident. Which is exactly why, like I said before, this is something people should care about, as opposed to art shows, tampons, piercings, and other people's feelings about gender.

Maybe we are thinking more alike then we realize, but are both having trouble communicating?

P. C. Poppycock said...

Maybe so, and I appreciate the apology.

I am weary of every comment on today's cultural phenomena being interpreted as a personal assault on someone else's proclivities. It is an attempt at halting the discussion through shaming, and thereby avoiding assessment of the facts and assertions.

Just like in discussions that have race as a component. If you make a point about the statistics associated with gun crimes as they relate to race demographics, you are immediately labeled a racist, rather than unbiased facts with a race parameter being accepted as a reality.

The whole victimization, identity-group rights, oppression, and micro-this and micro-that triggering is becoming extremely over-used, over-played, and extremely annoying. It's especially maddening when political and social decisions are made on the basis of identity-oriented screaming and hollering just to pander to the crowds and make them go away, if only temporarily.

I could go on, but to what avail?

P. C. Poppycock said...

As long as we're all buddied up, why don't you give us your take on this item:

Anonymous said...

I am perfectly fine with people thoughtfully commenting on what goes on in today's culture. But it is simply common sense to not attack anybody who is doing no harm. I also have no problem with bringing up race when it comes to gun crimes, how can you not when these poverty stricken urban areas are filled with firearms and hopeless, desperate people.

What groups in particular do you see unnecessarily crying "victim" the most? Was the link to the Bowdoin article an example of someone playing an annoying, micro victimization card? Some lady who has the double whammy of a physical handicap and a social handicap shouldn't feel free to comment on her experiences with today's culture? Does her speaking about this make you feel as if your proclivities are being assaulted? Her event wouldn't be one I would likely attend. It seems easy enough to just ignore it along with the gross tampon art show. What was your actual take on the event?

P. C. Poppycock said...


As to the article, you realize the subject is not a student, right?

I don't believe I characterized it or her in anyway; I simply provided a link and ask for your take.

Best I can tell, she is a touring celebrity of a sort.

To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to believe there's something of a hustle going on.

P. C. Poppycock said...

BTW; I don't attend any of these events, and I haven't used the Tampax laden "Men's" rooms. So you can X-out the "why don't you just not go" guidance.

I simply leaf through the campus newspaper the students leave around town, including places I frequent. These are the stories they deem to be big news for the student body, alumni, and town residents.

The used sanitary napkin art exhibit was on the walls of the central student center; probably the single busiest place on campus....the meeting spot at all times of day. The only way one could avoid it was to wear a blindfold or avoid your normal social stop. In other words, it's in your face if you are part of "the Bowdoin community."

Anonymous said...

When I said "attack" i was not necessarily referring to you, I was talking about the many verbal or physical attacks against minorities and those that are deemed "different". It doesn't make a difference if she is a student or not, she is giving her perspective. If it turns out she is a scam - not handicapped, not gay, telling untrue stories, then shame on her.

My brother in law works at Bowdoin, I'll have to discuss some of this with him. If they are displaying used tampons in the student center, shame on them.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Here you go; sorry for an error in the detail....the menstrual photo were placed in student union men's rooms, whatever that term means these days.

You can look here for this week's edition of the campus paper, and if you look a bit, you'll see that you can find back editions as well.

Keep in mind that I see the print edition where I have lunch on Fridays.

A look at the full edition should reveal to you a campus obsessed with X and Y. I don't want to pre-judge, so you let us know what you think X and Y are.

Anonymous said...

At firstI thought I agreed with you, people should be able to go take a wizz without having to hide their eyes from bloody tampon pictures. But then reading the article about the art project and putting "art" where people didn't expect it, and then seeing the quote about how if men "can’t even look at these things directly, how can you say women are weak?”, I started to change my mind. It is, after all, free speech. After seeing that photos of Trump's face were also placed around campus, it got me thinking...I would most certainly be more comfortable trying to wizz in front of the tampon picture than the Trump face.

As for X's and Y's, as far as I know females have 2 X chromosomes, males have XY, but sometimes their are cases of XX males or XY females, or other syndromes, (and maybe even some Z's or some vowels?) Not sure your point of the question.

P. C. Poppycock said...

We are clearly not "communicating." My choice of "X and Y" was unfortunate, given the possibility of ambiguous meaning. Fraid I don't think in terms of sex chromosomes on a daily basis. It hasn't been an issue for me in forever.

What I meant was to avoid giving my view of the obsessions, but that you could offer your own guesses after scanning the paper.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, still confused.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Think of X and Y as "unknowns" in the algebraic sense. You read the paper and guess what they are.


Anonymous said...

I feel like I am on the X-Files right now. I will get to the mystery tomorrow.

P. C. Poppycock said...

One more try.

I have my theory about what the primary obsessions on campus are, but I'm "holding them close."

After looking at the campus paper, what do you think the top obsessions are on campus?

I don't want to bias your thinking in any way by giving my opinion, but once you give yours, we'll see how they compare.

Anonymous said...

I went back to your link today which led me to today's Bowdoin Orient. From what I can see college kids seem "obsessed" over things I would have guessed...sports and "hooking up", and music. There are also articles dealing with the monthly theme of Out-ober, as well as a timely article about talking politics with those who see things differently.

P. C. Poppycock said...

No gender issues, huh?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, of course the ones relating to out-ober were gender related. That is apparently an issue on campus. Too bad that it has to be.

P. C. Poppycock said...

The above is fairly typical; I'd say the average edition has about four items on gender identity/expression. Sometimes more, sometimes less. When the items are opinion submissions, the writer often reveals being totally consumed by their gender issue and nothing else. I don't know how some of them make it through their programs.

No wait; I take that back. There are major tracks for them.

Anonymous said...

Article on inclusion? Good, important. Gender violence? Unfortunately important. Calling somebody's art queer? Whatever.

Good thing the college offers these majors, it seems to be a real issue. STILL not sure why you seem so bothered by it all.

P. C. Poppycock said...


Just the opposite; if it were not for the gender identity crisis in everyone's lives, we'd live in a perfect world and culture.

That's why I keep pushing for more gender issue content, especially on college campuses.

Is that better?

If not, as I said earlier, I'm beginning to believe there is a hustle going on. When colleges spend good money to bring people like Jonathan Katz, "visual culture scholar," and Leah to campus, one could argue that there is an opportunist industry profiting from the campus identity crises.

Apparently you find little interest in cultural transition taking place in academia where impressionable minds seeking to be "different" are the norm. I happen to consider it a precursor for the culture at large.

By the way, what do you consider legitimate topics for interest, concern, etc?

Anonymous said...

" if it were not for the gender identity crisis in everyone's lives, we'd live in a perfect world and culture.

That's why I keep pushing for more gender issue content, especially on college campuses.

Is that better?"

Better? Now I think you are just trying to confuse me with contradictory statements.

As for the guest speakers, one could also argue that there is a need that is being filled. Supply and demand. A problem that is being addressed. Now there certainly could be people seeing that there is this need and trying to jump into the game using a little hustle, just like there is in meeting any demand.

Culture is ALWAYS in transition. People have ALWAYS been freaking out about impressionable youth and what they are getting into. Kids have always wanted to be different.

I think that people have the right to be interested or concerned about whatever they want. It is the actions they take about their interests and concerns that can sometimes be the problem. I am not saying this about you, but much of the issues and pressures the LBGTQ community feels is because of things they are hearing and seeing making them feel like there is something wrong with them, or they are not as accepted, or they are in fear of physical and verbal hate crimes. I'm sure some have parents that have disowned them. These are real, and serious problems that can mess with young minds. I am glad to see them being addressed on campuses. Are there a few kids who are just fooling around for shock value? Yes, but not the majority.

P. C. Poppycock said...

I was trying to confuse you with a little sarcasm laced "humor."

I think we're at the point where we should agree that we see these things very differently as to their broader meaning and consequences, which is to say agree to disagree.

Our repartee at this point doesn't seem to be heading anywhere.

P. C. Poppycock said...

PS: "as to the actions they take," the "community" is taking action all over the place in the name of their comfort and rights as they see them.

Their comfort and rights run smack into the comfort and rights of others who see things differently, which leads to mucking up our governance with such issues in the name of ending "oppression" when there are far more meaningful issues requiring attention from elected and unelected officials.

I think that's probably it. Oh, though I'd just as soon not have urinals and stalls adorned with any form of "art."

Anonymous said...

C'mon, tell me how their comfort and rights is smacking into yours! Because you have to look at things sometimes that makes you uncomfortable? Gimme a break. Mucking up our governance? Huh? Maybe there are more meaningful issues for you, but the world doesn't revolve around you. For many of these people having experiences making them outcasts and being mocked and sometimes physically attacked the issue is a very high priority.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Oh, I don't know. How about restrooms and my grandchildren?

As I said, I think our time is done. You have a far different view of "norms" than I do.

And watch out how you address people, lest you get sued. Realizing that it can change day by day or week by week.

There are rights, and there is pandering and kowtowing.

Anonymous said...

Restrooms and your grandchildren? What are you going on about? Worried that kids will see a picture of a tampon in a college restroom? Wow, that'll ruin them. How could you explain that one to them! Now I finally see the big fuss about the whole thing.


Take to the streets!

Anonymous said...

And don't worry about the horror stories you hear coming out of Breitbart, nobody is going to get sued by accidentally referring to somebody by the wrong gender. Now you are just getting hysterical.

P. C. Poppycock said...

You completely miss the point on restrooms and gkids. But by now I can see that your vector on this subject is from a completely different angle then mine. And I'm gathering you don't have the curiosity that others do for keeping informed.

Plus, I don't read Breitbart, though you apparently do. So you probably don't see new statutes and civil law deriving from any of this.

Yeah, you're right. Otherwise people would be able to shut down bakeries or pizza places for not doing as they asked.

You just see all this as changing the color scheme at the Junior Prom, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

"you don't have the curiosity that others do for keeping informed."

Now that's just obnoxious. Makes me think you have run out of rational things to say so you throw out dopey insults rather than try and explain your point. Yes, I read Breitbart. I read everything from all viewpoints to get an understanding of where people are coming from. Fu&# the baker who decides they will only bake for certain people. It's ok if McDonalds decides it goes against their values and beliefs to serve coloreds or gays or blondes or whatever? That would be ok with you?

No, this is WAY bigger than color schemes, this is human decency and living in a land that respects all who are not harming others.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Anonymous said...

Thanks for confirming what I said, "nobody is going to get sued by accidentally referring to somebody by the wrong gender" Or fined. Or jailed.

Because of course the law reads that the wrong gender must be used “willfully and repeatedly” in order to be treated as a misdemeanor. (like jaywalking).

And as the bills author states : Even willful and repeated violations alone wouldn’t lead to criminal prosecution, but would likely be punished with a fine.

Criminal charges would only follow if the violation reaches a level that is shown to cause the risk of death or serious physical harm, in accordance with state’s existing penalty structure for health and safety code violations at long-term care centers.

So thanks again for reaffirming my initial point, as well as once again showing how the far right gets needlessly hysterical over things.

Tom McLaughlin said...

You're dodging the issue.

I would refuse to call a man "she" or "her" just because he thinks he's a woman. Regardless of the DSM's recent revision that resulted from political pressure and not science, the man is mentally ill. Neither would I call someone who professes to be Napoleon "Emperor."

Since I would repeatedly and willfully refuse to affirm him in his psychosis, I would be the one breaking the law as it now reads. This is how totalitarianism manifests. They are training Thought Police out there in the land of fruits and nuts.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Apparently you think this will not "evolve." That there are no NGO's or attorneys who will see an opportunity here and build on it.

One way or another, the process has begun of memorializing in state statute prohibitions of acts that just a few years ago weren't even a known issue.

Weasel wording or not....

P. C. Poppycock said...


You forgot flakes in the granola mix.

And thanks for your crisp statement on the issue.

Anonymous said...

"Overall the weight of these studies and others points strongly toward a biological basis for gender dysphoria."


So since there seems to be the distinct possibility that the gender issues are NOT a choice, there IS a choice people can make who interact with them. They can choose to be empathetic and give the benefit of the doubt, politely calling the person what they want....or they can be a rude A-hole.

And it doesn't even matter how much science may end up definitively proving this, people like you guys will continue to disregard the in climate change.

Tom McLaughlin said...

That's what you call it. I have a much higher standard of proof.

I call it the thinnest of evidence propagated by PC-pandering publications who are losing circulation.

Long ago I cancelled my Nat Geo subscription.

So, why do you keep coming back here?

You choose to, obviously.

Anonymous said...

You have already proved that if you don't want to believe something then scientific evidence means nothing to you. If Breitbart told you that dogs don't exist you would believe it even if a bulldog was biting your ass.

You are going to have to cancel everything that is not given the ok by the Alt Right talking heads i guess, because it is obvious that they want to create their own truths and "alternate facts".

And yes, I will keep coming here to expose the hypocrisy and untruths.

P. C. Poppycock said...


You listen here young man, don't you take that tone of voice with me. I'm old enough to be your mother, and maybe even your grandmother, and ladies like us don't appreciate your childish impertinence.

You hold to scientific explanations for gender dysphoria all you want. Now you can find the same explanations for racial dysphoria, the kind that afflicts Rachel Dolezal, and Bill Clinton, "the first blaok President." And maybe it will show why, President Obama, who is half white and half black, is considered the second black President, instead of just another white President.

So far we have transgendered and trans-racial.

While you're at it, why don't you look up the scientific explanation for trans-species maladies...which you should find under species dysphoria. Here's some places to start:

So have at it, but watch out how you talk to the rest of us, or we'll call your mother and have her wash your mouth out with soap. I've always found that the mother to mother connection comes through in such situations.

I am not reading you a story when you go to bed tonight; you'll have to tuck yourself in and turn out your own light. And don't forget to go potty before you go to bed. I'm tired of your bed-wetting.

Anonymous said...

Really? After all the butt kickings you have been taking when it comes to logic, facts, and human decency, this is the response you come up with? A lame "you're a kid, pipe down"? Maybe if you are in your 70's and had a kid at a real young age, then you could indeed be old enough to be my mother. But age certainly doesn't equal smarts or a grasp on reality....just look at Trump as a prime example.

Not sure why you are so hung up on Obama's race. Well, I think I do know....

Or on peoples genders. Well, there is the Ted Haggard example.

I glanced at your first link long enough to see how you have been played for a fool by a performance artist.....yawn.

So it's cute that you've suddenly gotten all sassy in your responses (feeling brave now that Tom has teamed up with you?), but I won't need a bedtime story tonight because you have bored me to sleep.

P. C. Poppycock said...

Hey, A-man.

I hope your Playboy subscription is up to date. They have their first trans centerfold in the new issue, apparently.

What a breakthrough. The mag may have to change its name, though, don't you think?

"Playboy" is such a white-privileged, patriarchal, sexist, misogynist, cis-gender superiority term. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Happy reading!