Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ the sexes

In the latest Jesus and Mo strip, called “lives,” the boys debate the timely question of who’s a man and who’s a woman. The author included this statement in the email:

A significant proportion of the political establishment seems to be losing its mind over this issue. To be clear: trans women are trans women and trans men are trans men. They deserve to be treated with the same kindness and respect as any other human being. But, as I am sure most regular readers of J&M know, you don’t have to believe in bullshit to be kind. Don’t trust anyone who tells you otherwise.

Curiously, Mo takes the woke position, but the barmaid asks a salient question—especially salient when it comes to sports participation.

16 Comments

  1. Sastra
    Posted February 19, 2020 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    It’s called “transplaining” …

    • GBJames
      Posted February 19, 2020 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Heh.

  2. Paul S
    Posted February 19, 2020 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Salient indeed. Based on names in yesterday’s ACLU thread concerning who is/isn’t a woman I noticed it was dominated by men.
    I had hoped Diana M. would chime in. Sastra did comment but nobody replied.
    I was a bit disheartened.

    • eric
      Posted February 19, 2020 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

      I was disheartened by the number of people implying ‘cheating.’ I see it as analogous to the men who think women must be lying about date rape.

      The issue of sincere trans people and fair sports participation is a difficult enough problem; we don’t need to layer distrust and accusations of lying on top of it.

      • GBJames
        Posted February 19, 2020 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

        I don’t understand your concern, Eric. Are you saying that cheating isn’t a real issue in sports?

        • eric
          Posted February 19, 2020 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

          Nothing of the sort. I’m saying cheating by claiming a trans identity has not, by empirical evidence, been shown to be a real issue in sports. Please cite a reference if you think otherwise.

          Remember, people who come out as trans increase their chance of sexual assault by something like 10x or 100x. It’s not like a trans girl is reaping ‘all benefit’, they’re getting attacked in the bathroom. The assumption that someone is going to shoulder this burden in order to make the HS track team??? Seems fairly paranoid and irrational to me.

          • GBJames
            Posted February 19, 2020 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

            If that’s the case then the Connecticut situation doesn’t even exist.

  3. Rawandi
    Posted February 19, 2020 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Let’s not forget that the brain is part of our biological body.
    The “biological reality of our bodies” is not reduced to elements such as the glands and sex chromosomes but also includes the brain structures that determine gender identity (cis, trans) and sexual orientation (hetero, homo).

    • Sastra
      Posted February 19, 2020 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      Every thought, belief, and idea is ultimately grounded in the brain, including false ones, so that’s an empty claim. The existence of “gender identity” prior to the effects of environment and socialization is a controversial issue, and I don’t think the science supports it.

      There’s also the additional problem that, even if granted for the sake of argument, it may be largely irrelevant in the larger picture. As the barmaid might put it, “Don’t you think there’s more to the biological reality of being a woman than a “gender” module in the brain?”

      • Rawandi
        Posted February 19, 2020 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

        Sexual orientation (the multiple possibilities that constitute the hetero-homo continuum) and gender identity (the cis-trans continuum) are not “social constructs” but innate instincts, that is, biological traits caused by the way it was Built the brain of the fetus.

        • Sastra
          Posted February 19, 2020 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

          We do not know that “gender identity” is an innate instinct built into the brain of the fetus, though yes, that’s what’s being asserted. I’m not any sort of expert in the field, but my understanding from looking at several sources is that the evidence for it is poor and contradictory, with no definitive finding. As with all studies of the adult brain, it is difficult to separate what happened before birth, from what is due to environmental factors afterwards.

          • Rawandi
            Posted February 19, 2020 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

            Half a century ago, a psychologist named John Money believed that gender identity was learned, and convinced a couple to raise their son (David Reimer) as if he were a girl. The boy had lost his penis during a medical circumcision performed when he had not yet reached one year of life.

            The experiment showed that Money’s theory was flatly false. Gender identity is not a social construct but an innate instinct.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

            • Sastra
              Posted February 19, 2020 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

              The “experiment” doesn’t show that at all. Reimer was born a normal male who suffered an accident to the penis in surgery; knew he was different; his parents knew his sex; and his upbringing involved forced choices, bizarre therapies, and medical interventions. It was an uncontrolled mess. Money’s theory of gender identity was built around crude stereotypes.

  4. grasshopper
    Posted February 19, 2020 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
    Reg: What!?
    Stan: It’s my right as a man.
    Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
    Stan: I want to have babies.
    Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
    Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
    Reg: But you can’t have babies.
    Stan: Don’t you oppress me.
    Reg: I’m not oppressing you, Stan — you haven’t got a womb. Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

  5. Bruce Lilly
    Posted February 21, 2020 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Clearly, “Jesus” and “Mo” are having girl talk; if true parthenogenesis (a.k.a. “virgin birth”) were possible in diploid primates, the offspring would surely be female. Perhaps “Jesus” was a trans man…

    • Benoît Leblanc
      Posted February 21, 2020 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      Unless Mary was a bird. I mean, I wouldn’t dare refer to the Mother of God as a chick, but if her sex chromosomes were ZW instead of XX, her parthenogenetic offspring would be ZZ (male) since the WW condition is nonviable.

      Could that be why the holy spirit is represented as a dove? And angels as having wings? Mmmmh…. 😉


%d bloggers like this: