Propaganda never sleeps

The efforts to make gender identity a stand-in for sex, and to place trans-identified males in spaces and positions that should really be for women, is a sprawling mess. As you’ve probably noticed. I’d like to comment on a couple of propaganda developments I’ve noticed recently without creating a post that’s a sprawling mess.

One of them is a wave of wacky social media posts that appear on the surface to be parodies. They call for “empathy,” “respect for identities,” and conversations about “dignity and equality.” They lead, though, with stupid behavior and claims of lawsuits that somehow are neither identified nor capable of being searched.

The other looks like one of those leftside narrative whose suddenly popping up in numerous places suggests it was planned, then planted. Having come across three examples in two days, I thought of Ian Fleming’s dictum that “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.” This new narrative says citing biology in discussions over woman-transgender boundaries is “unscientific.”

One of these was a social media graphic that said, “Trans women are women – biology says so. Terfs [sic] use outdated science to try to persuade you, they are right, but they’re wrong. Biologists will tell you so. Scientists will tell you so. Every major health organization in the world will tell you so. Your opinion is not science.” Making the reasonable presumption this is in advocacy for people with penises living as women, and having established (more or less) social identities as women … WTF? I would imagine that were this to refer to transsexual women (post-genital surgery), it would be that they are “woman enough” and quietly left at that. Otherwise, we need a cameo from Mike Meyers’s Wayne Campbell character to deliver a definitive “NOT!!!”

Another comes from a guest post on the “Erin in the Morning,” blog, worth checking from time to time for the latest in trans-related legislation. There’s a ballot proposition in Colorado, Proposition 109, which is a basic women’s private spaces and athletics protection bill. According to this post, “it actually goes much further in its encroachment onto Coloradans’ rights and privacy. Initiative 109 would also introduce unscientific, arbitrary sex definitions into law—based on what kind of gamete, if any, someone’s reproductive system is judged to be ‘organized around’” (emphasis added). Yep, that’s what an RTFM says it says. And reasonable people would agree that it’s scientific: females produce ova, males produce sperm. Duh.

The cherry on top: In Britain, late life transitioner Steph Richards has reportedly been appointed as parliamentary engagement officer for Endometriosis South Coast. Richards formerly served as the CEO of the charity before stepping down following significant backlash because maybe someone who’s experienced endometriosis would be better suited for the position. Endometriosis South Coast claims it’s “scientifically inaccurate” to claim only women experience endometriosis, because it also affects trans, non-binary, and intersex individuals. Presumably those who happen to have a uterus and are, therefore, women. (So you’re saying people born with a DSD but have a uterus aren’t women? Isn’t that insulting?)

To my mind, a woman would say, thanks, but I don’t have a uterus so I’m not qualified to represent those experiencing endometriosis. The people you’re trying to serve need a representative with skin in the game. But that’s just me.

Now to the wacky posts. They’ve gone away, but will probably come back because I went on to pages to get better notions about the posters. One post I transcribed looks to have been a one-off, but other posters appear to be doing gentle activism (from which I’d now like to keep my eyes averted).

The random post claimed “A trans woman is taking legal action after an airport scanner repeatedly misgendered her, flagging her as male despite presenting as a woman. She called it ‘transphobic technology,’ shedding light on the struggles transgender travelers face with security systems that aren’t designed inclusively. Her story has sparked outrage and highlighted the biases built into automated screening tools. Experts say many scanners rely on outdated algorithms and gender norms, ignoring the diversity of human bodies. … Advocates stress that technology should adapt to human variation, not force people into rigid categories.”

I presume the scanner found a pubic area bulge, which the machinery will do. I’d read a similar story once, in which the emphasis was the embarrassment of having to self-out as transgender to explain. I wouldn’t know how to analyze this further.

A different post complained that “Facial recognition systems consistently misclassify transgender and non-binary individuals due to their reliance on a rigid male-female binary. These systems are trained on datasets that categorize gender based on superficial, biometric traits like jawline shape, bone structure, or facial hair, leading to frequent misgendering.”

No, actually, they categorize sex. Poking around, I found that facial feminization surgery can affect results in a presumably desired manner. Apparently, the technology is being used in planning such surgeries, which is brilliant. Still, the biometric traits facial recognition technology uses are hardly “superficial.” The technology can’t possibly determine “gender”—an internal experience some people have—as opposed to sex. I’m not interested in having a “conversation” about this.

Meanwhile, Erin in the Morning may have given the game away in a new post about three bills pending in Portugal, one of which “would return name changes and gender marker changes to a 2011-era framework requiring adults to obtain a formal diagnosis of ‘gender incongruence’ from a multidisciplinary clinical team.” Erin Reed complains that the “2011-era framework … treated being transgender as a disorder requiring intensive clinical diagnosis steps rather than an identity people could freely embrace.”

Well, if you’re going to expect medical treatment to alter physical characteristics and hormonal profiles, aren’t you going to have to be clinically diagnosed with the disorder of gender dysphoria? And isn’t it the people who’ve taken on being “transgender as … an identity people could freely embrace” who have been causing so many problems for women and girls?

So which side in the debates over what is appropriate as regards this whole “gender” thing are the ones being “unscientific”?

Trans propaganda is in the environment, so observing whether this new “anti-scientific” meme flies should be easy to observe.

P.S. Yep: “The recent World’s Strongest Woman competition made headlines after a female athlete was awarded the title following the removal of a trans competitor. The decision has ignited fierce discussions online about fairness, inclusion, and competition rules.

“Supporters say the ruling protects the integrity of women’s divisions, while critics argue it raises tough questions about balancing inclusivity with competitive standards. The story is now trending across social media, fueling debates on eligibility, gender identity, and fairness in sports.

“One thing is clear: the conversation isn’t ending.”