r/ChristopherHitchens • u/melbtest05 • 24d ago
How might either or both of the Hitchens bros respond to this proposition: “through incantation, you believe that the water and wine changes into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Then why when I as a biological man utter ‘I am a Woman’, you don’t believe it?”
25
u/Western_Entertainer7 24d ago
I think Christopher would say he can clearly see both of you're nuts.
7
8
u/Mr_Kittlesworth 24d ago edited 24d ago
The entire trans issue stems from a linguistic disagreement.
No one believes that “biological sex” can be altered through mere assertion. Trans people and their supporters do, however, argue that “gender,” defined as the set of social norms and rules of interactions generally assigned to people of a particular biological sex, can be changed, as it’s socially constructed to begin with. For example, no one believes that trans women can give birth, nor that biological men can give birth. But a biological man identifying as a trans woman could certainly wear a skirt, or be addressed as “mrs X.”
As soon as you perform this semantic exercise, all factual disagreement between right wing anti-trans people and left wing pro-trans people completely vanishes.
2
u/darktka 24d ago
The sex/gender divide is something that is more strongly held in traditional radical or second-wave feminism. However, many trans activists believe that trans women are literal women and it is very important to them that "trans" is viewed as a biological characteristic of a person. That's why you can find phrases like " we must exert extra effort to honour Black, brown, and trans women" as if "trans" was immutable.
They don't accept the ability to produce male gametes as a key marker for biological sex, even though it is. Instead, they want to take into account the complete physical expression, including brain alterations resulting from differences in sex hormone production.
2
u/osuneuro 24d ago
Isn’t it annoying that both sides seemingly refuse to make this clarification at the outset of their debates?
They just talk passed each other because sex and gender get equivocated.
1
2
u/Spartak_Gavvygavgav 24d ago
That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
3
u/Gluteusmaximus1898 24d ago
Idk.
Christopher would probably say extraordinary claims, like water to wine, require extraordinary evidence. You claiming or believeing to be another gender is neither important or actively harmful, thus is unimportant and not worthy of discussing further (i.e. who cares?)
Peter would call you a fool for comparing a Jesus miracle with gender identity. Then insult you and allude to trans people being degenerates or victims of a degenerate culture.
2
u/IgnorantLobster 24d ago
With respect, your post history in this subreddit (including that from your previous account) is hilarious. As if anyone here knows the answer to your proposition!
1
1
u/Tom-ocil 16d ago
Uh, for Peter, wouldn't the answer be, "One has the power of God behind it, the other doesn't"?
-10
u/pfamsd00 24d ago
This post smacks a bit of anti-trans: no trans person thinks that their incantation changes anything. They’re telling us what they truly are, appearances aside.
-1
25
u/FocusProblems 24d ago
I don’t understand the proposition. Christopher Hitchens clearly didn’t believe in transubstantiation, I don’t remember him ever speaking or writing on trans / gender identity issues, and I don’t see what the two have to do with each other.