Henry Ford once said that "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." The premise behind his quote was that the power of mindset and belief in terms of achieving goals. Cultural relativists have taken that concept to a whole new level with gender identity. While biological sex refers to one's chromosomes, hormones, organs, and anatomy, gender identity proponents argue that gender identity pertains to "one's inner sense of being male or female," i.e., inner self-perception. Under this framework, gender identity aligns with one's biological sex for the vast majority of people. However, there are a small minority of people for whom there is a disconnect between biological sense and gender identity, which is where gender dysphoria comes into play. The diagram below summarizes the differences.
As this diagram illustrates, the idea of biological sex and gender identity are, at least conceptually, two different things. Even if that were the case, where the left took a turn to Looneyville is by conflating the two and asserting that your gender identity is biological reality to the point where denying someone's gender identity is tantamount to bigotry. Under this schema, you can become a man or woman (or however you choose to identify) simply by identifying as one. It is how those in the trans rights or trans activism world and its allies support biological men playing in women's sports, supporting gender-affirming "care" when the evidence base is anything but affirming, or ironically (or maybe that is unironic) being homophobic enough to insist that gay people should date trans people lest they be branded transphobes.
This concept of gender identity brings us to current events. Last week, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Women Scotland Ltd. vs The Scottish Ministers that the word "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to male and female, as determined by biology. While those on the Left view it as an indictment of how prevalent anti-trans sentiment has spread, I view it as a win of reality over adhering to ideology. The ruling is a reminder that acknowledging biological reality is not a form of bigotry and that no amount of bureaucracy can transform a man into a woman. To quote media outlet Spiked Online:
"Cosmetic surgery and a piece of paper don't make a man a woman any more than a deep desire to be female does. Besides, gender identity has always just been about feeling and pronouncement. It is not a concrete, verifiable, or coherent concept."
Gender identity is neither concrete nor coherent.
Those who profess the importance of gender identity treat it as some sort of objective truth, but that it can also be changed at one's subjective whim. And if you do not accept the new gender identity, you will get labeled a bigot like J.K. Rowling did. If gender identity were that concrete, they would have come up with a definition of "what is a woman" that does not rely on the circular logic of "a woman is someone who feels like a woman." Not that I agree with Matt Walsh on everything, but this circular logic was the whole point of his documentary "What Is A Woman?" This adherence to ideology would explain why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not provide a definition of a woman at her confirmation hearing.
The fact that some on the Left argue that gender is a social construct and others argue that gender identity is internal and biological further illustrates its incoherence. After all, if your genitals do not establish your gender, then why does removing them affirm your gender? Gender cannot be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to the individual. It cannot simultaneously exist as self-chosen and a product of socialization. Nor can gender simultaneously be independent of sex and defined in reference to sex.
This particular incoherence puts the LGBT community in a real bind. If the idea of "man" and "woman" are based on biological sex, then LGB is intelligible and the T makes less sense because then the definitions of "man" and "woman" are based on sexual attraction. If being a "man" or "woman" is not tied in biology or physical form, then sexual attraction/orientation or being LGB is no longer intelligible. This point came up when I wrote a piece last year showing how advocating for the trans community and kowtowing to every demand of trans activists means a path towards gay erasure.
Simply because you feel something or identify as someone does not make it so.
I have an affinity for the Latino world and my Spanish is good enough where I have passed for Argentinean on multiple occasions. I do not going around claiming that I am Latino, even when there are days that I wish I were Latino. If anything, I correct people when they call me Latino because the truth is that my ancestors are from northern and central Europe. Someone who is 50 or 60 years old who identifies as 16 does not magically become a teenager by simply wishing they were younger or identifying as a teenager. Since those who believe in gender ideology opened the Pandora's box in terms of "your identity is your reality," I can go as far as saying that if a friend of mine were to identify as a cat, I would not congratulate him/her and go out to buy a scratch pole and litter box. I would be legitimately concerned for their mental health.
Truth and words matter.
Trans activists argue that trans issues only affect those who identify as "trans men" or "trans women," but this affects everyone because truth and what constitutes as a fact are on the line. What is the harm by linguistically accommodating someone by using their preferred pronouns or chosen name?
If a consenting adult wants to undergo gender affirming surgery, I do not mind as long as it is done with informed consent. I wish those who are dealing with gender dysphoria the best in overcoming or at least learning to live with the dysphoria. I am against this procedure for children because a) the evidence base does not show significant benefit while there are considerable harms and b) over 80 percent of adolescents that experience gender dysphoria outgrow it by their adulthood without medical or surgical intervention. Both points undermine the need for such procedures as a norm rather than an exigent exception, but I am getting off track. I am okay with transgender people serving in the military and I think a transgender bathroom ban is unnecessary. Part of being libertarian is allowing consenting adults to do what they want with their lives as long as they are not harming others, and that includes transgender individuals.
What I take issue with is that we are being asked is to accept a lie. As much as gender-reassignment surgery could be helpful for a small minority of those dealing with gender dysphoria, and as much I try to imagine the struggle of those undergoing gender dysphoria, it does not change the reality that surgery does not magically turn a man into a woman, or vice versa.
How we navigate, describe, and refer to the world matters if we want to observe an objective reality. It is with that discernment that we can best identify problems in public policy and in society, as well as come up with solutions. After all, how can we protect human rights if we are not doing so on the basis of reality or what humanity entails? It does no one any good to perpetuate a lie, especially if your political posturing is that of "follow the science." As Ben Shapiro would say, "Facts don't care about your feelings."
The fact that we even need to have a Supreme Court ruling to declare a basic biological truth that has been obvious across civilizations and centuries, not to mention in the animal kingdom, shows how much global society has devolved in recent years. Up is down, terrorists are freedom fighters, and men are women. Welcome to 2025! It is good to see people stand up to the relativism. As much gaslighting as there has been with "transmen are men" and "transwomen are women," more people are waking up instead of being woke.
We should wake up because our freedom of speech and expression are at stake. Self-assured social movements have no need of censorship -- only the morally unsure and intellectually insecure require such brute instruments. It would explain why the trans right movement leans on censorship and conformity to try to get its way. Contrast that with the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, or the gay rights movement that did not have to resort to such tactics.
The UK Supreme Court ruling is another data point that shows that the Far Left went too far with gender ideology and to reaffirm that manhood or womanhood are more than a matter than self-identify or what legal paperwork might say. I do not want there to be a backlash that results in violence against trans individuals, but I also want a world where we can speak truth to power and not feel intimidated in speaking out simply because disagreeing with one’s perception of the world or oneself is too much for someone to handle. I hope this Supreme Court ruling is an indication that freedom of expression is heading the right direction in terms of there being less authoritarianism and greater free speech for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment