Slavoj Zizek — Why I'm Against Both Sides in the Transgender Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sLJkQq38fs

This guy in the comments absolutely nailed it:
> Zizek goes way off into the wilderness on this topic. Traditional gender ideology posits that there is a broad set of social behaviours that are 'feminine' and another that are 'masculine' and that females must adopt the feminine and males the masculine. Trans ideology is a reaction to the traditional but on its terms, e.g. there are males who 'should have been females' and therefore they may adopt the feminine, and vice versa. The correct interpretation is that a large component of behaviour is neurologically constructed by experience, and innate aspects of behaviour are also contaminated by the constructed aspects. The 'masculine' and 'feminine' have no absolute biological origin. It is objectively true (and will probably remain so unless it becomes possible to transplant brains - which concept increasingly seems to be incompatible with the biological nature of subjective identity) that one's biological sex is immutable. However, a male behaving in the received 'feminine' mode of his culture is no more or less 'legitimate' as a male than if he behaves in the received 'masculine' mode of his culture. Whether it is culturally correct to call such a man a 'woman' and apply feminine pronouns is arbitrary, although it is worth noting that such a culture would then require a new term meaning 'human female' and new pronouns meaning 'referent who appears to be male', in order for the language to retain its capability for precision.

#gender