Hijab hijinks at Harvard

December 19, 2016 • 3:15 pm

I’m sorry to keep hearing about how my alma mater (for my Ph.D.), Harvard, is becoming more and more Regressive Left (I’m tired of using that word, so if readers have another, let me know.) They created social justice placemats, the President threatened to punish students on campus if they belonged to single-sex “finals clubs” off campus, and now we have the obligatory celebration of the hijab—and Islam as feminism—in a post at the Harvard Gazette, “Islamic studies scholar addresses myths and mores behind the veil.” 

The scholar was Celene Ibrahim, an Islamic Studies Scholar-in-Residence and Co-Director of the Center for Inter-Religious and Communal Leadership Education at Hebrew College and Andover Newton Theological School, as well as a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern and Judaic studies at Brandeis University. Her talk was at Harvard’s “Faculty of Arts and Sciences Diversity Dialogues”, and her purpose was to address and dispel stereotypes about Islam.  The problem is that she whitewashed Islam, much as Karen Armstrong and Reza Aslan do. She told the crowd what they wanted to hear. Here are some of the things she said:

Ibrahim cited a 2011 Pew Research Center study that found “a median of 58 percent [of respondents] across four Western European countries, the U.S., and Russia, called Muslims ‘fanatical.’” She said the media shapes much of the American perception of Muslims as angry and oppressive.

Ibrahim acknowledged that while Muslim women are oppressed in some countries [JAC: that’s about all she said about that], Islamic theology is highly woman-affirming. “Muslim feminists often struggle … to reform misogynistic ideas, customs, and/or legal codes that don’t reflect the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad,” she said.

Well, I’ll decry those who call Muslims “fanatical” (though extremists ones are), but as for “women-affirming” theology, I’m not so sure about it. On what grounds are Muslim women “oppressed” in some countries? It’s the religious doctrine, stupid!. The Qur’an and hadith aren’t women-affirming, and, at any rate, whatever Muslim theology is now, it’s hardly pro-feminist. Even in Britain and the U.S., some Muslims are forced to wear the hijab by their families or peers, and of course there are all those Muslim-majority countries that hold attitudes like those shown below (taken from Pew’s “The World’s Muslims” study in 2013. First we get the percentage of people in Muslim-majority countries who favor making sharia the law of the land (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran were not surveyed!):

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-39-58-pm

Then, among those who favor sharia as the law of the land, here are the data on women’s rights:
 screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-39-44-pm

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-39-13-pm

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-44-31-pm screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-44-05-pm screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-42-58-pm screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-43-24-pm

And here’s the kicker: when you see the plot below, remember that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen were NOT surveyed, and those nations would surely fall in the “middle Eastern” group. If these people are inspired by a “highly woman-affirming philosophy”, somehow they’ve got it badly wrong!

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-2-44-16-pm

I can’t help but see Ibrahim as a “useful idiot” for Regressives, by which I don’t mean she’s an idiot, but that she’s blinkered and primed to say exactly what liberals want to hear. What they want to hear is something to resolve their cognitive dissonance over a people supposedly both “brown” and “oppressed” (traditionally a repository of liberal sentiments) being at the same time in the thrall of a theology/ideology that is misogynistic, homophobic, oppressive, and barbaric. How do you resolve this? You trot out Muslims like Ibrahim, who will assure you that Islam is grossly misunderstood. And the Harvard Liberals, eager to hear this stuff, will buy palpably false statements like this:

In addition, [Ibrahim] said, in places like America, much of what Muslim women do is a matter of choice. “There is great diversity in the Muslim community,” she said. While some Westerners may assume that Muslim women who wear clothing that covers everything but their eyes, pray in gender-segregated spaces, or attend women-only athletic facilities are being forced into an unwanted modesty, “There are some spaces where gender segregation is appropriate,” Ibrahim said.

In places like America, where only a few percent of the population is Muslim! What about places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and Egypt, and now, increasingly, Turkey? How much choice do those women have? And is a Muslim girl in America forced to wear a hijab at age six in a faith school (also in the UK) really exercising “choice”? Has Ibrahim thought about that? And where, exactly, are the spaces where gender segregation is appropriate? In mosques, many of which are so segregated in the US? Please tell us, Ms. Ibrahim! (Maybe she just means restrooms.)

And, of course, Ibrahim extols the hijab—meant to symbolize modesty and to protect women from arousing the hormones of males, who will be driven into an uncontrollable sexual frenzy, like spawning salmon, at the sight of a woman’s hair:

Ibrahim talked at length about the symbolic, religious, and practical purposes of the hijab, the headscarf worn by many, but not all, Muslim women. The headscarf is a symbol that has a certain power, she said.

“Wearing the headscarf is a matter of feminism, aesthetics, and solidarity for me,” she wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece earlier this year. “The hijab is fun and dignifying … it’s part of my morning routine.”

Feminism? The very garment symbolizes men’s control of women’s sexuality! Aesthetics? What is that about? And solidarity with whom?  It’s like wearing a ball and chain on your head—one put there by men.

But of course the useful idiot was useful: the Harvard folks, eager to hear that Islam is really The Religion of Feminism, and is Grossly Misunderstood lapped it up Ibrahim’s spiel like a cat drinks cream:

Joshua Dunn, procurement administrator in the FAS Office of Administration and Finance, one of the more than 130 people who attended the dialogue at Radcliffe Institute’s Knafel Center, said Ibrahim “challenged me to think outside the box about what it must be like to a Muslim woman living in the U.S. … Certain customs might be a matter of perspective and we should not automatically view [them] as oppressive.”

“I thought she laid out a compelling vision of feminist ethics and the virtues of a pluralistic society that values all cultures and religious beliefs,” he said.

Dunn is clearly a man yearning for confirmation bias.  The “certain customs might be a matter of perspective” blather is exactly the kind of cultural relativism that the Left must avoid. For it says that although it looks as if women are oppressed in many Muslim countries on religious grounds, well, that’s just a “matter of perspective.” We can always hire someone like Ibrahim to come in and tell us that we’re wrong: Islam is really feminist.

What a crock.

Celene Ibrahim leads a Diversity Dialogue titled Muslim Feminism. She guides guests on how to ensure that the workplace is a hospitable one for Muslim women. Beyond providing practical advice, Ibrahim helps guests to understand that being Muslim and being feminist are not mutually exclusive. Celene Ibrahim is pictured during the talk in the Knafel Center at Harvard University. Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer
Celene Ibrahim leads a Diversity Dialogue titled Muslim Feminism. She guides guests on how to ensure that the workplace is a hospitable one for Muslim women. Beyond providing practical advice, Ibrahim helps guests to understand that being Muslim and being feminist are not mutually exclusive. Celene Ibrahim is pictured during the talk in the Knafel Center at Harvard University. Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer (Harvard’s caption, emphasis by JAC)

Spot the moose!

December 19, 2016 • 12:00 pm

Reader Roger Sorensen sent a “spot the moose” photo with this note:

These were taken along the Minnesota north shore at Wolf Ridge Environmental Learning Center (near Finland, MN), May 2016.

A friend and I were at Raven Lake looking at pitcher plants and heard a crashing up the slope. There was the moose [Alces alces] – and seconds later it was out of sight.

It’s easy to spot once you look at the 2nd picture, taken after it ran off.

Can you spot it? I call this one medium hard. Click to enlarge, and I’ll post the reveal at about 2 pm Chicago time.

And remember that this popular feature was started long ago by Matthew Cobb, who put up a “spot the nightjar” post.

img_4986

How not to write a comment on this site

December 19, 2016 • 11:15 am

Re this morning’s discussion of grammar and words that irk the readers, the number of comments surprised me. Note, though, that my post was mainly about usages that disturb me and my readers, not whether they are taken by grammarians as correct. Ergo lots of people corrected me about the use of the word “hopefully” to mean “I hope that” (a usage I don’t like) versus the meaning “with hope” (the one I use). I recognize that both usages are seen by some experts as fine, and of course readers noted that.

But there are ways and ways of commenting. Here is the good way: a comment made by reader Don:

“Hopefully,” used as a sentence adverb, is fine. If I may repeat what I have posted below, Richard Nordquist writes, “The sentence adverb has served a useful function in English since the 14th century. In the past few decades, however, one sentence adverb in particular has come in for a lot of criticism.” He’s referring to “hopefully.”

He goes on to give a variety of examples, saying, “Unlike an ordinary adverb–which is conventionally defined as a word that modifies a verb, adjective, or other adverb–a sentence adverb modifies a sentence as a whole or a clause within a sentence.

“Dozens of words can be used as sentence adverbs, among them actually, apparently, basically, briefly, certainly, clearly, conceivably, confidentially, curiously, evidently, fortunately, hopefully, however, ideally, incidentally, indeed, interestingly, ironically, naturally, predictably, presumably, regrettably, seriously, strangely, surprisingly, thankfully, theoretically, therefore, truthfully, ultimately, and wisely.”

Note that this is a polite and civil comment, and I took it in (though I still won’t use “hopefully” as an adverb).

Here is the way not to comment; I put this up and then banned the reader “malvolioblog” for incivility:

No, it doesn’t mean only that, any more than “thankfully” only means “done in a thankful manner.” Sorry, but this is a case, as with so-called “split infinitives,” where people are trying to be hyper-correct — and thereby getting it wrong. Please stick to your biology, Prof. Coyne, leave the grammar to us writers.

(I certainly agree with you, though, about ‘I could care less’, but that is becoming idiomatic, in speech, at least. Probably a losing battle. Never acceptable in writing, except as recorded speech.)

The part in bold is simply rude, and I don’t want people like this commenting here. If you’re a first-time reader, read “Da Roolz” for commenting on the left bar, or go here. You’ll then understand why a comment like that accrues its author a permanent ban.

I don’t understand why people can’t be civil like Don. Why must they pull rank and be rude to their host? Oh well, such is humanity.

Monday: Hili dialogue

December 19, 2016 • 10:44 am

It’s December 19, 2016, with six shopping days left before Christmas and the beginning of Koynezaa. It’s National Hard Candy Day and National Oatmeal Muffin Day, presumably with the latter a palliative for the former.  Otherwise, there are no notable holidays on the planet, save Goa Liberation Day in India.

On this day in 1777, George Washington and his Continental Army established winter quarters in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. What a tough time the winter must have been for his Army!  In 1972, the Apollo 17 mission, the last manned lunar flight, returned to Earth. And on December 19, 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representative, the second President so indicted. Can you name the other one?

Notables born on this day include Nobel Laureate Albert Michelson (1892), Jean Genet (1910), Edith Piaf (1915, ♥), Phil Ochs (1940), and Jennifer Beals (1963). Those who died on this day include Emily Brontë (1848), Marcello Mastroianni, (1996), and Hope Lange (1993). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili pretends she’s immune to adulation and flattery, but you know she’s not!:

A: A reader wrote a letter saying that you are the best editor-in-chief in Poland.
Hili: I do not pay attention to flattery.
dsc00007a
In Polish:
Ja: Przyszedł list od czytelnika, który pisze, że jesteś najlepszą naczelną w Polsce.
Hili: Nie zwracam uwagi na pochlebstwa.

And here’s a photo of Harry, one of Matthew Cobb’s three cats (the other two are Ollie and Pepper), celebrating the holidays:

fullsizerender

Here’s Ollie, nestling in tinsel:

img_3913

And. . . Gus, who only visits the tree when fresh water is put in the stand (he drinks it, of course):

img_6366

Grammar that irks

December 19, 2016 • 7:19 am

I’m going downtown this morning for various errands, so all posts will be delayed until about 10 a.m. Chicago time. No worries, though: we will have Hili, we will have animals, and we will have a “spot the” feature. And there will be more on human sexual dimorphism as well.  In the meantime, perhaps you can fill this thread with things that bother you—or words and phrases that bother you.

Being a grammar Nazi, one of the things I don’t like to see is the use of the word “hopefully” in place of “I hope that.” Hopefully is an adverb that means “with hope”, as in “he looked at Shirley hopefully.” It is not to be used like this: “Hopefully, things will turn out for the best. Yes, I know that some dictionaries say “hopefully” can be used as “in the hope that”, but I don’t like it.  And I don’t care if Steve Pinker says it’s okay, for this is a thread about words that bother us.

Here’s another: “I could care less.” Well, if you don’t care about something, you couldn’t care less. If you could care less, that means there’s room for less caring, and that’s now what you want to say.

Alternatively, just talk about what’s on your mind, which would be a nice experiment.

Back in a few hours.

I get pushback on the sexual-selection theory for sexual dimorphism

December 18, 2016 • 12:33 pm

Last week I published a post intended to show that the profound sexual dimorphism for human size (and musculature) reflected sexual selection in our ancestors, a form of selection that can be explained only by an evolved difference in behavior: in humans, as in many other species in which females invest more in reproduction than do males, males (who often make little reproductive investment, sometimes only sperm) must compete with each other for access to females. The behavioral difference is a marked tendency to be promiscuous, compared to the greater choosiness of females. That behavioral difference is in turn a direct result of an evolved difference in gamete size and reproductive investment between males and females.

Competition among males for females can involve either direct male-male “battles” (as in elephant seals, gorillas, and chimps, as well as stag beetles and deer), or female choice of males based on of their ornamentation (as in African widowbirds, peacocks, and lions). I think the size dimorphism of humans is more likely a result of male “battling” for dominance and access to females than simply female preference for large males, though of course both factors can be involved. But regardless of whether the sexual selection involves inter-male competition—what Darwin called “the law of battle”—or female preference, it implies a behavioral difference between the sexes, and one involving the traits most crucial for evolution: those directly involved in sexual reproduction.

I also adduced four other bits of evidence predicted by the sexual selection hypothesis, which you can see at my earlier post. Those predictions were made before the data were collected, and they were confirmed. There are many other data supporting the sexual selection theory, and I’ll discuss them tomorrow. One I’ll mention now is that the measured variance in reproductive success among human males is higher than among human females, particularly in hunter-gatherer tribes. That is, in such groups some males leave a lot of kids (and thus their genes) and many others leave none, while, in contrast, the variation in offspring number among females is much lower. The difference in variance between males and females, by the way, is directly correlated with the degree of sexual dimorphism in those groups: the greater the difference in variance among males than among females—and thus the more polygynous the society—the greater the sexual dimorphism for body size. That relationship is a prediction made by the sexual selection theory.

Now, however, Holly Dunsworth, a biocultural anthropologist at The University of Rhode Island, has taken issue with the long-accepted theory of dimorphism (it’s not mine; Darwin was the first to suggest it!), and goes after me in a blog post called “In man’s evolution, woman [sic?] evolve too.” (That post was also picked up and supported by Jesse Singal in a column in New York Magazine, which makes the same errors as Dunsworth).

Dunsworth offers her own thesis, which, she says, puts more emphasis on female evolution.  I suspect her own hypothesis is in fact ideologically driven, and also neglects the possibility, which I did indeed raise, that female preference has evolved.  Apparently anthropologists bridle when what evolves in females during sexual selection is psychology rather than morphology! I also see that Dunsworth has emitted a very long string of tweets about my piece, which suggests some obsessiveness about the sexual-selection hypothesis and male-male competition. I don’t engage in Twitter battles, which are unproductive, but will make my positions clear on this site.

At any rate, here is Dunsworth’s own theory of why human males are bigger than females (I’ve put her theory in bold).

It’s not that Jerry Coyne’s facts aren’t necessarily facts, or whatever. It’s that this point of view is too simple and is obviously biased toward some stories, ignoring others. And this particular one he shares in this post has been the same old story for a long long time. [JAC: Yes, because it’s supported by lots of diverse evidence and makes predictions that have been met!]

What about the other side of the body size sexual dimorphism story?

What about the women?

Selection could well be the reason they stop growing before men and why they end up having smaller bodies than men, on average.

Perhaps men can make babies while growing, but perhaps women can’t. Energetically, metabolically. So reproduction wins over growth. We reach sexual maturity and stop growing. Is that just a coincidence?

Why doesn’t this (and other tales) fit alongside the big-aggressive-males-take-all explanation for sexual dimorphism? #evolution

Not only is it absent, but selection on women’s bodies be the driving force (if such a thing could be identified) and, yet, it’s as if women don’t exist at all in these tales except as objects for males to fight over or to fuck (but *thankfully* there’s that female choice!).

Knowledgeable people aren’t objecting to facts, as Coyne suggests. They’re objecting to biased story-telling and its annoying and harmful consequences, which Coyne doesn’t acknowledge or grapple with in his piece. [JAC: I do indeed acknowledge that we must be mindful of the misuse of biological facts, and not use what we deem “natural” to make social policy. Did Dunsworth even read what I wrote?]

I’ll respond to her hypothesis tomorrow (she calls mine a “story,” a snarky way of denigrating it since there’s ample evidence supporting the sexual selection hypothesis), but right now I want to make three points:

  • Dunsworth, who says that I am a sucker for unsupported just-so stories in evolutionary psychology, doesn’t seem to realize that I have a long history of criticizing adaptive evolutionary-psychology stories unsupported by evidence (go here, for instance).  In fact, evolutionary psychologists used to be mad at me, considering me overly critical. But there are some aspects of evolutionary psychology, like that of human sexual behavior mirrored by sexual dimorphism in body size, that are more scientific, for they make testable predictions that have been met. It would be churlish and intellectually blinkered to ignore both this hypothesis and the evidence that supports it, equating this to more speculative adaptive hypotheses that I’m warier of.
  • Dunsworth’s own “story” really is closer to a story, as it’s contradicted by the known facts about human reproduction. I’ll let the readers figure out what those facts are.
  • Finally data on the nature and traits that are sexually dimorphic in humans have, as noted above, been predicted by the sexual-selection hypothesis but not by Dunsworth’s “growth and reproduction tradeoff hypothesis.” So not only is her hypothesis contradicted by data already known, but is countered by many facts about sexual dimorphism in body size, not only in humans, but also in our primate relatives and other animals. Comparing the sexual selection theory with the tradeoff story, it’s clear that the former is the best explanation for the facts.

I conclude that Dunsworth knows nothing of my history of writing on evolutionary psychology and, further, is remiss in her own scientific approach, offering a story that’s amenable to her ideology because it allows females to evolve (mine does too!), and also a story that not only fails the empirical tests, but can’t predict the observations that sexual-selection theory can. Too, there seems to be more than a touch of intellectual mendacity in the way both she and Singal blithely ignore the supported predictions of the sexual-selection theory. Believe me, it’s more than “just a story.”

I’ll have more to say on this tomorrow, but am throwing it out here now for the readers to chew on.

main-qimg-974736cddd35d3d44921585523286e67-c
Male and female gorilla. Guess which one’s the male?

National Geographic publishes “gender” issue, still doesn’t satisfy SJWs

December 18, 2016 • 9:15 am

I don’t see any problem discussing the issues of gender roles, transgender people, and their activism, nor do I think we should discriminate against trans or “other-gendered” folk. Like gays, I think they feel a biological compulsion for their behavior and emotions, and we should respect that—and call them what they wish.

But I’m not sure whether National Geographic, which historically dealt with travel and social issues, should be the place to have this discussion. Here are two new covers of the January, 2017 gender issue. The first features Avery Jackson, a 9-year-old transgender girl from Kansas City who began her transition at age 4:

cover0117_subscriber_1aeb85570ae23889cfe12f51b3c0feec-nbcnews-ux-600-700

The alternative cover features a non-binary intersex, a bi-gender, two transgender females, a male, a transgender male, and a male:

national-geographic-publishes-special-issue-on-gender-revolution-01

With their increasing osculation of faith, and now this, National Geographic is increasingly dealing with social issues rather than scientific/geographical ones, and I’m not quite sure why. The magazine was purchased by Murdoch, and perhaps they’re trying to stem decreasing revenues with a bit of sensationalism. Or perhaps they’re becoming National Sociologist. 

One explanation for the topic is provided at the magazine’s site by Susan Goldberg, the head editor, “Why we put a transgender girl on the cover of National Geographic“:

The most enduring label, and arguably the most influential, is the first one most of us got: “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” Though Sigmund Freud used the word “anatomy” in his famous axiom, in essence he meant that gender is destiny.

Today that and other beliefs about gender are shifting rapidly and radically. That’s why we’re exploring the subject this month, looking at it through the lens of science, social systems, and civilizations throughout history.

In a story from our issue, Robin Marantz Henig writes that we are surrounded by “evolving notions about what it means to be a woman or a man and the meanings of transgender, cisgender, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, agender, or any of the more than 50 terms Facebook offers users for their profiles. At the same time, scientists are uncovering new complexities in the biological understanding of sex. Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby’s sex, full stop: XX means it’s a girl; XY means it’s a boy. But on occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.”

. . . But let’s be clear: In many places girls are uniquely at risk. At risk of being pulled out of school or doused with acid if they dare to attend. At risk of genital mutilation, child marriage, sexual assault. Yes, youngsters worldwide, irrespective of gender, face challenges that have only grown in the digital age. We hope these stories about gender will spark thoughtful conversations about how far we have come on this topic—and how far we have left to go.

I put key sentence here is in bold (my emphasis): “On occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.”  How common are these “occasions”? The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy at UCLA has a document by scholar Gary Gates giving these data:

  • An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender.
  • This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans, a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey.
  • Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay).

Lesbians, gays and bisexuals don’t, I think, count as those who feel they’re of different gender from their birth sex; they simply prefer sexual partners who are male, female, or both, and don’t conform to their own biological sex. True transgenders, who feel they’re of a different sex from their “birth” sex (whether identified by genitalia or chromosome constitution), constitute 0.3% of the population.

If you use the data on transexuals, and plot on a graph the frequency of people who identify as transexual versus those who identify (chromosomally, morphologically, and as sexual proclivity) as male versus female, you’d get two giant peaks (one at “male,” the other at “female”, with a valley in between representing transexuals. If you added lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, you’d still get a total frequency of those in the valley of about 3.8%, meaning that 96.2% of people conform to the genders of male and female (roughly 48.1% at each peak). If that is a gender “spectrum,” then it’s a spectrum on which the vast majority of people fall into two distinct classes, with a lower-frequency tail between these peaks.

This isn’t for a moment to imply that gays and transgender people are “freaks,” “abnormal”, or shouldn’t be treated with respect and dignity. All it means is that it’s false to imply that everyone is sexually fluid, or that the gender “spectrum” is roughly even, with no peaks. That’s simply not the case.

Sadly, even National Geographic’s attempt at empathy wasn’t good enough for some.  At Feminist Current, for example, writer Meghan Murphy objects to the first cover on numerous grounds, including that Avery was raised by a conservative family in the South:

Some have questioned the ethics of putting such a young child on the cover of a magazine, especially if this child is truly struggling with a disorder. Also troubling is the regressive presentation of Avery, decked out in a colour and posed in a way that is traditionally considered “feminine.” McNamara claims the cover “drives the point home that being transgender isn’t a choice, but just something you are,” implying that this feminized presentation represents something innate. Rather than saying that kids are drawn to various colours regardless of their sex and that boys should feel just as comfortable in pink as girls, the supposedly “revolutionary” cover conveys the opposite message: that this male child must be a girl because he wears pink.

Where does socialization and societal expectations factor into this “revolution?” Will it address the fact that boys are told they cannot wear dresses (lest they be called “girls?”)

While indeed Avery may be suffering from what the DSM calls “gender dysphoria,” having declared himself to be a girl numerous times, both Jackson’s and National Geographic’s choice to focus so heavily on a feminized appearance is telling. Conservative America wouldn’t accept a boy in “girly” clothing, but shouldn’t liberal America see things differently? And if a child truly does suffer from body dysmorphia or gender dysphoria, why are sparkles, pink, and “princess dresses” the primary focus of discourse surrounding these conditions? Surely we can support kids to be whoever they want to be and dress however they like without further reinforcing sexist stereotypes…

. . . Is this really what a “gender revolution” looks like? A boy whose “femaleness” is proven by stereotypically “girly” clothing and colours and an apparent rainbow of “genders” that excludes women entirely?

Gender, under patriarchy, is not the “spectrum” so many well-meaning liberals claim, but is, as feminist activist Lierre Keith says, “a hierarchy.” Gender functions in our society to devalue those born female and systemically empower those born male. A true “gender revolution” would fight stereotypes that say girls are inherently drawn to wear pink dresses and grow their hair long, while boys have short hair and are “rough-and-tumble.” It would, in fact, challenge society’s idea of gender itself, acknowledging that some humans are born female and others are born male, but that this doesn’t mean one is passive and submissive while the other is aggressive and dominant.

Others have objected that Jackson’s post is sexualized and provocative. I didn’t even see that; you have to be sniffing out improprieties to object to stuff like that. Every image must absolutely conform to the political agenda of those advocating trans rights.

I agree that there are ethical problems with presenting children so young on the cover, as there are issues about the proper age of consent. But presumably Avery dresses as she wishes, and perhaps she wishes to present as many young girls do: wearing pink and sparkles. Is that a problem? After all, the magazine has photos of eighty nine-year-old transgender people, and ten to one not all of the transgender girls are wearing pink. Is it the fact that Avery is the cover image that’s a problem?

Here are some photos from one essay that I think is in the paper issue (the entire issue is not free online). I don’t see a preponderance of pinkness or sparkliness in the women, and the boys dress diversely; the only consistency is that members of each gender try to dress as non-trans people of the sex they feel they are:

screen-shot-2016-12-18-at-8-23-22-am

As for what a true “gender revolution” is, Murphy really means a shift to equal treatment and valuing of men, women, and transgenders. She’s mostly talking about feminism and stereotypes, though I feel that the higher aggressiveness of men, at least, has some biological basis. (Again, that’s not to say that I think it should be accepted as the norm, just that it’s partly genetic and, on average, differentiates males and females.)

Murphy objects to the second cover, too:

While the cover features a male, two “transgender females,” an “intersex non-binary” person, a “transgender male,” an “androgynous” person, and an individual who identifies as “bi-gender,” notably absent is… A woman!

Her article shows tweets with similar sentiments, including this one:

https://twitter.com/boodleoops/status/809708877088456704

What I don’t get here is the claim that a woman is absent from the cover. In fact, there are two transgender women, and these are usually said to be, simply, “women.” That is, if you feel like a woman, you are one. I don’t have particular objections to this, but if that’s the sentiment held by most activist Leftists, then there are indeed women on the cover. If they don’t agree with that, then they’re saying that there’s something different about being a transgender woman and a “regular” woman, and I suspect it’s that the latter have two X chromosomes and a vagina. But that’s not the line taken by much of the Regressive Left.

The lesson is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too; if the Left sees transgender women as the same as non-transgender women, they can’t object to the absence of “real” women.

This all exemplifies the divisions that are fracturing the Left, and I can’t see us going back to even a remotely unified movement. What with the growing prevalence of identity politics, with each group having their own personal agenda; the use of “purity tests”, so that if you don’t conform to a specified agenda you’re a racist, a sexist, a transphobe, and so on; and the profound differences among progressives in those agendas—all this means we’re in for trouble, especially when, in an Age of Trump, we need more cohesion.