So, I appear to have become temporarily fixated on the remarkable coincidence of extreme arrogance and foolishness.

This is an incredible tweet, on so many levels. It's like pure emanation of trans ideological incoherence, and it's worth breaking down...

1. The idea that male and female are defined by gamete size is 'absurd notion de jour' is itself absurd. That is both the standard dictionary and scientific definition.

That doesn't mean that perception of gametes is necessary for humans to distinguish between male and female animals. We do that by understanding and observing their reproductive function, and in sexually dimorphic species, by understanding how that reproductive function is

related to their appearance/secondary sexual characteristics. We have been doing this as easily as we walk and breathe since long before humans wrote down a story about Noah putting animals in the fucking ark. (c.6C BCE) Pretending it's unfathomably complex is absolute idiocy.

2. The claim that perceiving and understanding another human's sex is a denial of their humanity is remarkable , and it would need to be extremely clearly argued for. Because there is no precedent for claiming that naming observable material phenomena about another human is a

denial of their humanity, and there is no philosophical or legal concept of personhood that requires people to accept as true everything you say or claim about yourself. This person is apparently a lawyer, the fact they have an essentially totalitarian notion of what 'respect for

personhood' or 'humanity' might mean is terrifying, just like Maya's judgement was, which rests not on law, but on the Equal Treatment Benchbook, which was dictated by trans activists.

3. The first sentence is a masterpiece of logical contradiction, and a great example of what

I've started to call the 'Schrodinger's Sex' function in trans ideology, which points to the way trans ideological identity simultaneously relies on biological sex, while also denying it.

According to this claim here, there are two types of females, 'cis females' and 'trans

females' (usefully Becca comes straight out here with the sex denial). How then are we to distinguish a 'trans female' from a 'cis female'? Um. Hmmmmmm. I wonder. Because the only answer is, *by their sex.*

A trans ideologue would generally point to this using the term

appropriated from the historic (mis)treatment of children with DSDs, that is, 'assigned male at birth.' But as we know, the cases in which sex would genuinely have to be 'assigned' to a human child are infinitesimal, and is not relevant in almost all cases of trans identity.

That is, a trans female is distinguished from a female by being male. Which is conceptual gobbledegook.

And the use of the 'AMAB' structure in trans ideology is a way of being able to point to sex as the necessary condition of being trans, while simultaneously denying sex in

order to make the claim that gender identity over-writes and determines biological sex.

Now you see it. Now you don't.

Well... there is something about the idea of extreme or absolute social constructionism which is like intellectual catnip to people who are quite clever but not very rigorous or complex in their thinking... https://twitter.com/AppleMak19/status/1300316605449211904?s=20

One of the things going on here, which I talk about at some point in the first video here video I think... (warning, very long), is that the traditional left-wing critique of ideology is about how oppressive social structures are reified by appeals to > https://janeclarejones.com/videos/ 

nature/god...

What 'not very rigorous/complex thinkers' have drawn from this is that *all appeals to nature are thereby ideological reification of social oppressive social structures.*

Which is absurd. Because natural phenomena exist, and not all descriptions of natural

phenomena are ideological.

This is how we end up with people who should know better making bonkers claim that the statement 'women give birth' is 'patriarchal reproductive biological essentialism.' https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1300058910116720640?s=20

The statement 'female people give birth' is not an ideological statement any more than the statement 'water is a liquid' is.

Any normative claim made on that basis like 'women should give birth' or 'a woman's value as a human being resides in her giving birth' is of course

ideological, and deducing such a claim from the fact of women's reproductive function would, indeed, be biological essentialism.

But gender critical feminists have never and would never make such claims, and the constant assertion that we have is a product of people not being

able to distinguish statements of fact from normative claims, and, with respect to the account of the development of patriarchy, not being able distinguish biology from history, or necessary from sufficient conditions.

<Ends>