Speaking of Balls . . .

Stacy McCain remind us: Testicles Are Not a Social Construct. I checked. . .

The science is settled:

However much we’d like to think of gender as a social construct, science suggests that real differences do exist between female and male brains. The latest evidence: a first-of-its-kind European study that finds that the female brain can be drastically reshaped by treating it with testosterone over time.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix, to summarize Judith Butler’s influential ideas as succinctly as possible — must be seen for what it actually is, a War Against Human Nature.

 . . .
You don’t have to be a neuroscientist to understand this. Just read the testimony of a lesbian feminist who spent 18 months on testosterone as a male-to-female transsexual before changing her mind. Why? Because she “never knew anger like this until going on testosterone,” experiencing psychological disturbances that included “a lower frustration threshold . . . burning rage” that was ultimately “unbearable.” Even after quitting testosterone, she found that her moods and attitudes seemed to have been permanently affected by this artificial masculinization of her brain.

As I said before, you get used to it after a few decades. At least I did. But then as you get old, the testosterone slacks off too.

This tells us a lot about the biological basis of male/female differences. Once we realize that these differences are inherent to who we are as men and women, the question is how we can teach young people to deal with the reality of human nature, rather than trying to abolish these differences in pursuit of utopian schemes of “equality.”

Which prompts me to bring in this other story via Elizabeth Foley at Instapundit:


He's Just a Crossdresser:

More than 150 Hillsboro High School students in Missouri walked out to protest a male student being allowed to use the female locker room because he self-identifies as “transgender.” Good for them for resisting the siren of political correctness.

The 17 year-old student, who goes by “Lila” Perry, has not had any surgery or medical procedures to alter his male body. He wears a wig and wears girl’s clothing. So in my book, that makes him a crossdresser, and merely because he “thinks” he is a female cannot make it so. And of course, in true “victim” mentality, Perry is accusing all of the (actual) young ladies who are protesting his presence in their locker room as bigots:

“There’s a lot of ignorance, they are claiming that they’re uncomfortable. I don’t believe for a second that they are. I think this is pure and simple bigotry,” Perry told local news station KMOV.

This is typical far-left hyperbole, branding those who disagree with you as “bigots.” Transgender should be a label confined to those who undergo surgical alteration of their physical genitalia–you know, those who actually change their gender. It should not be so broad as to encompass those who subjectively “think” they are another sex, whilst still objectively possessing the genitalia associated with their genetic makeup. If it is a term that has any meaning at all, it must be judged by objective, not subjective, standards.
And I’m sorry, but “Lila” is clearly just a dude with a wig, and I wouldn’t want my teenage daughter to share a locker room with him/her/it:

It's hard to say it better than that. If the boy is sincere (I rate the odds at 10%), and truly thinks himself to be a woman, then he needs to come to grip with the fact that he is in the far left end of the bell curve, beyond the point at which reasonable accommodation is possible. Having to dress in a boys locker room should give him just a taste of what he is asking the girls to tolerate, being gawked at by what they believe is an unrepentant male.

If the boy is just making this shit up to be able to enjoy the girls locker room, he's got big balls. Until he doesn't, I wouldn't make any accommodation to him other than allowing him to dress "elsewhere" safe from any prying eyes, an accommodation he's already expressly rejected as insufficient capitulation to his new found femininity.

When this kind of controversy first surfaced, us men all claimed that some guy (usually us) would inevitably claim to be a "girl in a boy's body" so we could claim access to the girls locker room. I think we finally a guy with enough balls.