Stephen
Kershnar
The Conceptual Difficulty of
Transgenderism
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
January
30, 2019
On a
current theory, transgender people have a gender that differs from their
assigned sex. Traditionally, sex refers to one’s biological category, whereas
gender refers to socially constructed norms that tell people how to behave. On
this theory, binary people are exclusively male or female. Non-binary people
are not so exclusive.
This
theory asserts that some non-binary people are located on a gender continuum
between pure male and pure female. On this theory, there are still other
possibilities. Some people have two genders, some have no gender, and some change
gender. Transgenderism is independent of sexual orientation in that transgender
people can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.
On an
even more fashionable theory, a transgender person’s sex (as opposed to gender)
is assigned at birth rather than being a biological feature. On this theory, a
person’s gender depends on identification. If a person identifies as a woman,
she is a woman. If that same person identifies as a man, he is a man. On this
fashionable theory, there is no objective standard for sex or gender. Such a theory
holds that factors such as genes, body parts, reproductive function, and
hormones do not make someone a man or woman.
Transgenderism
has given rise to moral, medical, and legal issues. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Kevin Williamson
points out that in sports, transgender individuals are dominating, winning
events, and setting records in cycling, marathons, mixed martial arts,
softball, track, volleyball, and weightlifting. In mixed martial arts, a
transgender fighter seriously hurt her opponent.
In
medicine there is an issue as to whether transgender people have a mental
disorder. In psychiatry, gender dysphoria is a disorder that involves gender
non-conformity that causes significant distress. Distress in transgender people
is a serious matter given that a 2011 study by a UCLA think tank found that 41%
of transgender people have attempted suicide.
In
law, President Trump prohibited transgender people from serving in the U.S.
military. This past month, the Supreme Court allowed the prohibition to go into
effect while the lower courts consider it. In 2016, the Obama administration
required schools receiving federal money to allow transgender individuals to
use the bathroom matching their gender. The Trump administration eliminated
this requirement.
The
above transgender picture of the world is a conceptual mess. First, consider
what gender is. Ryan Anderson, author of When
Harry Became Sally, notes that if a person is a woman when she identifies
as a woman, we still need to figure out what it means to identify as a woman.
If a
person identifies as a woman when she sees herself as having a female gender,
we’ve gotten nowhere in understanding what it means to identify as a woman. We
still need to know what it is to see oneself as having a female gender. If,
instead, identifying as a woman involves seeing oneself as biologically female,
then gender depends on sex. On such an account, a transgender person might be wrong
if she is mistaken about her biological sex. If gender depends on identifying
with a set of features that society has arbitrarily said make someone a woman, then
what makes someone a woman is arbitrary. This is implausible. The features are
there for a reason.
If biological
sex is not an objective fact but a status assigned at birth, as fashionable theorists
now claim, this raises the issue of how and why society assigns a sex to a newborns.
Again, it is implausible that this was done for no good reason and on an
arbitrary basis. If, instead, people have an objective biology-based sex, then
biology is not assigned at birth. Rather, it is recognized at birth if not
earlier.
Second,
there is the issue of whether a person is infallible with regard to her gender.
To see this, consider whether an individual gets to choose what it takes to be
a woman. If the individual chooses this, then absurd results occur. Being
attracted to members of the same sex cannot make one person a woman and another
a gay man. Yet if the individual gets to choose what sort of identification makes
her a woman, such an odd result could occur.
Third,
as University of Warwick philosophy Rebecca Reilly-Cooper points out, if there
is a gender spectrum, then everyone is transgender. This is because no one is
purely male or purely female in terms of having exclusively masculine or
feminine thoughts, behaviors, and values. It is implausible, though, that
everyone reading this column is transgender. Such a conclusion would horrify
the muscled up gorillas at Darwin’s gym.
Even
if there are people who have male and female body parts (consider intersex
people) or unusual genetics, this doesn’t show that male and female are not biological
categories. It doesn’t do so any more than the existence of cubs from a lion
and tiger (for example, ligers) shows that lions and tigers are not objective biological
categories.
Fourth,
if the fashionable theory were true, human beings would be at odds with the
rest of the animal kingdom. Reproductive function explains a lot about animals’
genes, bodies, and behaviors. This is also true for human beings. For example,
the Y chromosome is inherited only from one’s father. Other material
(ribosomes) are inherited only from one’s mother. The genetic, bodily, and behavioral
differences of males and females across much of the animal kingdom are
significant and not socially constructed. If animals have an objective
biological sex, then human beings likely do so as well. After all, we’re just
apes.
Perhaps
as a way of respecting transgender people, we should allow for such a
conceptual morass. We might want to allow for seemingly unfair athletic
competitions, medical disorders that depend in part on whether the underlying
condition causes suffering, and bathroom use depending on identification. We
should be careful though. Incoherent metaphysical pictures of the world tend to
slop over into other areas of thought.
