Gender Identity is wrong no matter how many professional associations say it’s right and it is not hurtful to say so; here’s why:
Gender Identity is wrong in its origin.
The term was coined by disgraced psychologist John Money. He claimed that gender was a social construct separate from biological sex, and that some have a different gender identity than their biological one. His faked data of David Reimer’s gender transition and his malpractice of Janet Frame are prime examples of why he should not be used as a competent source. Money was a sadistic paedophile who said: "If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way.” (Interview: John Money. PAIDIKA: The Journal of Paedophilia, Spring 1991, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 5)
John Money should be used as an example of how not not to practice psychology, both scientifically and ethically. If we are at all interested in medical ethics we should cite the term Gender Identity in the category of wrong.
Gender Identity is wrong in its etymology
But even if John Money was not corrupt and incompetent, the claim of Gender Identity is that gender is a social construct separate from biological sex. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“Gender” comes from the same root as “gene”, “genetics”, and even “genitals”, there is no way to separate this word from a very binary biological reality.
The term "gender" comes to us from Sanskrit "gana" to Greek “genos” or the more general “geno”.
It was first used in english from late 14thC to mean the distinction of masculine, feminine, and neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else.” (Jespersen. Philosophy of Grammar, 1924).
The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15thC. Gender came to be the usual English word for the biological sex of a human being by the 20thC. Should we allow the followers of some pathological psychologist from the mid 20thC to dictate the pace of change of the english language? Individuals or companies have been known to change language quickly (Hoover and Kleenex, for example became generic terms from brands); but in every case the change benefitted the whole of society and was not foisted upon us by the demands of a loud group of irrational idealogues.
Gender has nothing to do with social and cultural constructs, and everything to do with biological distinction between the sexes. In fact the only difference in definition between “sex” and “gender” is that “sex” can also refer to the act; both refer to undeniable biological realities regardless of how any person may subjectively feel about those realities, and neither of them are social constructs.
“Gender” comes from the same root as “gene”, “genetics”, and even “genitals”, there is no way to separate this word from biological reality.
But even if this wasn’t established etymology, this is an english argument… How do you translate “sex is biological reality, but gender is a social construct” into languages that have only one word for the concept of sex and gender? This is from the ideology that claims social inclusion riding roughshod over every other language and people group in the world.
I was taught to refer to someone in the first or second person in their presence, and that is what I do.
I do not require people to refer to me in any certain way unless they are intentionally being offensive or threatening, and even if they are I have a whole range of responses that keep me in control. My wife always said that he who angers you controls you.
If the argument is for uplifting those with some kind of dysphoria a very effective therapy is one of learning not to let the opinions of others affect you, even when offended, that is an invaluable social skill. Other's erroneous perceptions of yourself cannot harm you unless you determine they may. What they ought to do is strengthen your identity and your capacity to articulate it in a way that society can accept it. The social contract is a two way street, making loud, irrational, contradictory, and impossible to follow demands on all of society is what babies do.
Gender Identity is wrong in it’s research and so-called treatment
Lately many have been trying to show a biological source for Gender Identity. If it has a biological source with biological markers, then it is a condition, like intersex. But if it has no biological markers, as its founders claim, then by what are the rest of society to believe, understand, or incorporate it?
All the research in the world can only conclude one of two things that Gender Identity is either a physical condition or that there are no biological marker for it. But that does not mean it is a natural thing, it is a vast leap away from medical science to claim that, of all the dysphorias, this one is a natural one and should not be treated as a mental health problem. Gender Identity is either a physical condition or it is a delusion, a mental health condition and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
I’m not suggesting that real people do not suffer with real anguish. My argument is not against those who are suffering with this condition, my argument is against those who claim to treat it. Body dysphoria is not treated with surgery, why then do we claim sex incongruence should be treated with surgery? The only claim is that Gender Identity is real and gender is a social construct, neither of which are remotely true in their origin, their science, or in language.
If Gender Identity is purely psychological, as its founders claim, then surely it should be treated as such.
If Gender Identity is purely psychological, as its founders claim, then surely it should be treated as such. Surely the appropriate treatment for anyone not feeling like they belong in their physical body is to try and help them feel more comfortable in it. Surely surgically removing healthy tissue, and trying to block healthy hormonal function is only going to add physical and social misery to existing mental misery. Even if we continue this barbaric treatment on adults, surely we should not do it to children! This is common sense.
Treating sexual dysphoria with reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, and hormones is not treatment, it is torture; following in the bloody footsteps of John Money, the founder of Gender Identity. Even their own studies show that “the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care” and "individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgery were more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders compared with individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not received gender-affirming surgery” despite the misleading title of the study (American Journal of Psychiatry, Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study, Oct 4th 2019).
I also cannot help but wonder, if gender is a whole spectrum, why then they only offer one reassignment surgery? If you’re a man they claim they can make you into a woman, and vice versa. Despite the fact that it is an empty promise, why don’t they offer reassignment to xe, ze, ve, tey, and hir? Obviously because those things do not exist in reality. This is not science either in research or in practice, it is eugenics, it is mutilation, it is false hope. It is also a violation of the Hippocratic oath.
Lastly we ought to look at the de-transitioners, the emotional and physical pain poured out on children lured into sex reassignment surgery when what they needed was mental health care.
...why don’t they offer reassignment to xe, ze, ve, tey, and hir? Obviously because those things do not exist in reality.
It is not cruel to call out people who add torture to those already suffering, and it is not science to say that hormone treatment, puberty blockers, and reassignment surgery saves lives.
Gender Identity is wrong in its social ethic
Putting the burden of mitigating offence on the so-called offender rather than on the one offended is unethical stupidity and social suicide.
Surely the high ground is taken by those who are not easily offended and who know how to handle offence with grace, forgiveness, and dialogue. If I make my subjective emotional response to anything you may say your responsibility then two things will happen.
Firstly you will not say anything because you have no way of knowing what my subjective emotional response may or may not be, but that won't solve the problem because I could equally be offended by what you don't say, or the way you look at me, or don't look at me.
Secondly this strategy takes power away from the very person we are claiming to empower. If I am marginalized, in the minority, what I need to do is learn to argue objectively for a common held truth, not throw and irrational tantrum and make irrational demands based on my subjective feelings. We ought to teach children this skill, because that kind of rational thought and measured dialogue is not only empowering, it is also truly inclusive; making demands based on subjective offence is not.
When someone is speaking about me in good faith, I think it’s prudent that they choose whatever words they have in their vocabulary. There are those who would say deliberately hurtful things, perhaps there is cause for calling that discrimination, but to compel others to use my preferred pronouns, or adjectives, or nouns is a level of lunacy we have never reached at before as a society.
There is no legitimate government that has ever compelled speech. A legitimate government does not compel speech in any circumstance, and and illegitimate one does. As with everything the government reaches for, once that precedent is set there will be no limits to speech compulsion; and the effects of that will be dire!
If a society is to remain free people must be able to interact with it without being compelled to use certain words. This will inevitably cause people to be offended, because offense is utterly subjective. Legislating against personal, subjective offense is one of the the most dangerous thing we can do, akin to nuclear war. All thinking and discourse, and learning will have to stop. Because, as Jordan Peterson says, "in order to think you have to risk being offensive”; and as Thomas Payne said, “he who dares not offend cannot be honest."
In what universe do we think we can legislate against offense? Not only is offense utterly subjective, it also causes absolutely no harm and is actually of great benefit to the individual and to the society. The whole art of debate, the whole structure of learning, science itself depends on us allowing our senses and preconceptions to be offended so that we either prove the challenger wrong or accept his premise. Peer review without offense would not even consider the thoughts that have shaped our scientific worldview and progress. The level of hypocrisy shown by those claiming inclusion whilst demanding conformity is nothing short of staggering!
The level of hypocrisy shown by those claiming inclusion whilst demanding conformity is nothing short of staggering!
Once we say that it is illegal to offend someone then we simultaneously forbid anyone doing or saying anything at all, because everything offends at least someone.
I, for example, have a neurological condition that affects about 2,000 Americans; that is a tiny minority of people. I cannot reasonably expect many to know my condition by name. If I got offended every time I had to explain why I walk and talk the way I do then that would just be something I would just have to live with, I could let it shape me positively, and those around me.
Fortunately I do not get offended by questions about my condition, I like educating people, especially the curious. But imaging for a moment that I could sue anyone who asks me why I exhibit certain physical limitations, everyone would simply stop asking, and they would stop asking anyone about anything, it would simply be too dangerous.
Compelling the use of preferred pronouns, or anything else, is sheer madness, it is the suicide of society to compel speech. Don’t think for a moment that the government would stop compelling speech there, they never do. Once we give them that president very soon we are standing at the foot of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue, forced to bow to it and sing its praises or face the fiery furnace.
What about the rights of biological women? Are we seriously to stand idly by as men take jobs, awards, achievements, and even biological credit from women? Are we going to allow these glorious and meaningful terms, "mother", "woman", and "girl" to be treated like they mean whatever anyone want them to mean, as if they mean nothing at all?
How about achievements in women's sports? Are men to have those now just because they identify as women? The argument, that being male isn't an advantage because many men couldn't compete successfully against top women in their field, is not a real argument. It is well established that average differences are totally unlike differences in the extreme; that is what makes our society a meritocracy. Exceptionally athletic women are likely better than average and below average men, but exceptional men far outnumber and out perform exceptional women in competitive sports.
exceptional men far outnumber and out perform exceptional women in competitive sports.
Just because a professional organizations or association says something doesn’t make it true, especially if they are politically motivated to say it.
Remember how professional organizations told us that smoking is not linked to lung cancer, and high carbs are not linked to heart disease and diabetes? There was once a time when the professionals said that abolishing slavery would wreck our economies; and that stocks have reached a permanently high plateau. There is no politically hamstrung panel of experts who have earned our unquestioned loyalty simply by being experts. They will have to prove their claim, not hint at or suggest it but prove it in peer reviewed, long term studies, especially since the claim threatens pre-historic sociobiological precedent and the very heart of free speech.
Just because a professional organizations or association says something doesn’t make it true, especially if they are politically motivated to say it.
If we are to overturn the english language in favor of this Gender Identity ideology; if we are going to mandate, socially or by law, the adoption of these terms and all of its tenants as demanded by self-appointed activists (not by those who are truly suffering); if we are going to sacrifice terminology we have held onto and cherished from pre history; if biological women are to give up their hard won safeties and achievements as a biological category of humans; and if we are going to compel the use of certain language out of the fear of offending; then we are also going to lose our humanity.
If Gender Identity is given its lead, it will produce the opposite of it’s stated outcomes, and worse. It threatens not only our thriving, but also our survival as a species.
Truth exists objectively, truth is not malleable to individual interpretation from subjective experience, and the sooner we accept that the better. If you disagree with me, if you think truth is subjective, that everyone has their personal truth to live, then ask yourself if that statement is true for everyone or not. It cannot be by your own definition. If it is not true for everyone how then can it be true for anyone?