Quotes About Gender

don't you think? Not that this isn't a common bias. But women can be psychopaths,

Women may make slightly less—maybe—but the seventy-seven cents to the dollar statistic is what men and women make, on average. It isn't a comparison of the two sexes in the same jobs, with the same experience. It's comparing total earnings across all jobs, which ends up being apples to oranges in many cases.

Men choose high-paying fields like engineering, chemistry, and mining more often than women do. Women choose lower-paying fields like education and social work more often than men do. This accounts for most of the difference.

We've conditioned the public to believe women are only making a fraction of what men make for so long now, they'll believe the lie before they believe the correction. This claim has been around for so long it's created its own fucking reality.

You almost had to feel sorry for women trying to make it to the top of the crime world—they had a tougher road. I mean, a woman would have to murder twice as many people in cold blood as a man to get to the top, and much more viciously. It really wasn't fair to these corrupt, soulless, psychopathic women. But, hey, I didn't make the rules.

When it comes to women, men only hear what they want to hear. It's one of the many failures of their sex.

Trans campaigners intent on arguing that trans is hardware can only win their argument if they persuade people that being a woman is a matter of software. And not all feminists are willing to concede that one.

Why should certain feminists feel entirely fine about men who become women only then to either flaunt their perfect breasts, ape the royal family or take up knitting?

After all, in the sporting world, being discovered to have taken testosterone is ordinarily grounds to prevent someone from competing – unless, it turns out, the person is taking testosterone to transition to the opposite sex. In which case sensitivity overrides science.

Second-wave feminist rhetoric placed blame for the female condition entirely on men, or specifically on "patriarchy" . . . The exclusive focus of feminism was on an external social mechanism that had to be smashed or reformed. It failed to take into account women's intricate connection with nature – that is, with procreation.' Or why, 'in this era of the career woman, there has been a denigration, or devaluing of the role of motherhood.

Consider the example of trans. There was a reason to linger over the difficult and poorly discussed issue of people who are born intersex. It was not for prurience but to make a point. As Eric Weinstein has observed, anyone genuinely interested in addressing the stigmatization and unhappiness felt by people who are in the wrong bodies would have started addressing the question of intersex first.

Any parent may notice the differences between their sons and daughters, but the culture tells them that there are none or that those that are there are purely 'performative' issues.

Nathan Verhelst,

In India there are the Hijras – a class of intersex and transvestite – knowledge and acceptance of whom dates back centuries. In Thailand the Kathoey is a type of effeminate male who is widely accepted to be neither male nor female. And on the island of Samoa there are fa'afafine, men who live and dress as women.

about cycling deaths in London written by a woman can be framed through the headline: 'Roads Designed by Men are Killing Women'.10 Such rhetoric exacerbates any existing divisions and each time creates a number of new ones. And for what purpose? Rather than showing how we can all get along better, the lessons of the last decade appear to be exacerbating a sense that in fact we aren't very good at living with each other.

we seem to have decided that the individual complexities which actually exist not just between women and men but within men and within women can simply be pushed to one side with the assumption that they have all been overcome.

And while taking oestrogen made him cry more and change his taste in movies, when testosterone came back into his body it had an equally 'sexist' set of effects. He noticed a lot of common behaviours. He became more angry, more aggressive and – yes – far more horny. Today he has been off hormones for more than two years. But the effects of his time 'transitioning' across the sexes is still with him.

In one way Timothy had gone all the way around the oppression cycle. From woman, to trans, to white man and therefore to the personification of the white patriarchy. From minority to oppressor. Where female to male transitioners can create one pile-up, male to female transitioners produce another of their own – most obviously with people who have been born as women.

So the recognition that there were two different sexes turned into the suggestion that there were two different genders. And from there the argument was carefully escorted to what turned out – in the universities at least – to be a wildly popular conclusion: which is that there was in fact no such thing as gender. Gender was not real but merely a 'social construct'.

The author of The Female Eunuch had only dealt with trans issues in depth once in her career. In her 1999 book The Whole Woman Germaine Greer devoted a ten-page chapter ('Pantomime Dames') to her contention that people who were born men could not be classed as women.

Perhaps the most obvious point of non-overlap with the trans movement is that in many ways trans does not challenge social constructs about gender, but reinforces them.

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct'. This was an academic paper published in 2017 which proposed that: The penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a gender-performative, highly fluid social construct.14

It is a stimulating scientific riposte to the people claiming that biological differences between the sexes do not exist. As Pinker said, 'Things are not looking good for the theory that boys and girls are born identical except for their genitalia, with all other differences coming from the way society treats them.'2 Except that less than two decades later they are. The facts are certainly on Pinker's side, but the noisier voices are not.

What is trans? Who is trans? What makes someone trans? Are we sure that it exists as a category? And if so, are we certain that attempting to turn somebody physically from one sex to another is always possible? Or even the best way to deal with the conundrum this presents? Among all the subjects in this book and all the complex issues of our age, none is so radical in the confusion and assumptions it elicits, and so virulent in the demands it makes, as the subject of trans.