Posts Tagged 'politics'

Only two genders? Think again!

Published June 4, 2025 sex and gender Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

You think there are only two genders?  Think again!

The following was inspired by seeing a brave young man wearing a T-shirt with the bold declaration: “THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS!”

I admired the gumption displayed by the young man, but it made me wonder.  What happened to the other gender? And why are we even talking about gender, when what we mean is sex?

I understand the T-shirt’s point, trying to correct the loonies who loudly insist that sex is a continuum, a spectrum, with an infinite number of locations and identifications.  

But Gender?  How did that get mixed in?

FACT CHECK #1:  There are three genders, not two.  If you can find an English grammar book (or even a dictionary) from the twentieth century, you will discover that gender is defined as “the classification by which nouns and pronouns (and often accompanying modifiers) are grouped and inflected…”

In English, the three genders are Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter.  He, she, and it. Three. Not two. And not infinity.  This is also the case in virtually all European languages. All nouns are gendered in French, without any reference to sex; thus, knife (le couteau) is masculine and fork (la fourchette) is feminine.

FACT CHECK #2:  There are only two sexes.  This fact is biological.  Since time immemorial, sex has been verified by visual inspection of reproductive anatomy. But in the late twentieth century, scientists unlocked  the cellular-level secret of DNA, and the role that X and Y chromosomes play in sexual differentiation. 

The Transgender movement which has taken over the Western left, has proclaimed its boutique rebellion by re-defining both sex and gender, de-coupling them from their long-term realities.  Both words now portray imaginary, that is mental, conditions.  A man (or boy) feels that he would be happier as a girl; so, he announces that he is one. Later, he (or his parents) decides to transform him into an imitation of a woman, by puberty blocking hormones at first, then by mutilating surgery, amputation of his genital, breast implants, “vocal-cord feminization”, etc.

If the Trump presidency accomplishes nothing more than the de-legitimization of the transgender movement, if it only forces society to recognize it as a mental condition which cannot be treated with surgery or group pretense, and especially if it criminalizes the mutilation of confused children, then America will be a better place for it.

Needed: A New Unionism

Published December 2, 2011 Unions 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

In Mother Jones (of all places), Kevin Drum has posted an interesting argument about the need for private sector unions to concentrate on wages and benefits rather than work rules.  This alone is an example of pretty creative thinking for laborites, but it still misses the mark.

Unionism in the private sector is not just down; it’s almost out. Membership has been falling steadily for half a century and is now circling the drain, with membership at 6.9% of the workforce. In 1953 it was 36%.

This disastrous decline has been partly masked by the simultaneous growth of unions in the public sector. While private unions sank, public ones climbed from near-zero in the 1950’s to around 36%, where it has held steady since 1980. Decline has also been disguised by the growing political power of the union movement, as its electoral organizing skills have improved even as membership organizing has languished.

Why the decline? Why have private sector workers stopped joining unions?

The unions have a ready answer: it’s too hard to organize because employers cheat. They scare and intimidate and fire workers who try to organize.

Undoubtedly true, in too many cases. Union-busting consultants have a bag of anti-union tricks that can certainly make certification elections hard to win.

But that just begs the question. Why only now? Didn’t employers know these tricks during all the years unions were growing? Didn’t Henry Ford know how to intimidate workers? Didn’t the steel companies? Didn’t construction firms? Coal-mine operators? The Mohawk Valley Formula for union-busting dates back to 1936.

So why are so many unions now stymied by employer opposition?

Other possible explanations for union decline abound. Many heavily unionized manufacturing and textile industries have moved jobs overseas in search of lower costs.

But other industries that are largely homebound have not been organized in their place.

And in fact many newer industries (high-tech, for instance) are often fairly good employers, offering decent benefits and workplace flexibility in a conscious effort to attract a happy, productive, and non-union workforce.

Private sector unions may be short of members, but not of excuses.

Continue reading ‘Needed: A New Unionism’

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow Mister Moleman and his Friends on WordPress.com