There is an inordinate number of news stories these days on "transgender" issues. Pew Research last year reported that about 5% of young adults say their gender is different from their "sex assigned at birth." So, 1) why are there so many stories about this massive minority, and 2) what is "sex assigned at birth"? Let's settle the last first. Sex is not "assigned at birth." Sex is a biological fact, a measurable reality ... starting with XX or XY chromosomes which cannot be changed. No amount of surgery or hormone therapy or "I feel" will ever change that biological reality. Sex is binary -- male and female. Nothing else. The doctors don't flip a coin and say, "Heads! This is a girl!" (According to the NIH, the true prevalence of intersex births is about 0.018%, although higher estimates have placed it as high as 1.7%, so when an obstetrician (or any other observer) simply looks at the newborn, they can declare with a minimum of 98% accuracy what the sex of this baby is.) It is not "assigned."
In the title of that Pew Research report, they used the phrase "their gender" over against "their sex." We generally use the two interchangeably, so what's up with that? Well, sex is biological -- male and female. Gender is the expression of that biology -- masculinity and femininity. Today most appear to have bought the line that gender is "a social construct." That is, society has just made it up. Is that true? No ... and yes. First, the "yes." Some of masculinity and femininity is indeed a construct of the local society. In Africa, for instance, masculinity is expressed when their sons go out, kill an animal, and eat its heart. Not here. Here we have pink for girls and blue for boys. Some of that is absolutely made up out of tradition and thin air. Some, not all. On the "no" side, then, there is actual biology. Males and females are biologically different. Men, for instance, don't endure PMS. Biology. Males can't get pregnant; females can't inseminate. Biology. Male and female brains are wired differently and work differently. Biology. (And they keep finding more differences.) Male eyes are more attuned to movement while female eyes are more attuned to detail and color. Biology. (Do you see anything "gender" related there?) And on and on it goes. Watch this video when you have a half hour. They aren't going to politics, philosophy, social studies, or religion; they're going to biology and how it explains a lot of gender and how we perceive masculinity and femininity as a function of biology.
Well, this is getting long, so I'll stop here. Let's review. Sex refers to the male or female biology. It is scientific, measurable, and unchangeable. It is not "assigned at birth" (except by God). Gender is the expression of male and female sexes - masculinity and femininity. Some of that is mere social construct -- we just made it up -- but the majority is biological. To allow "I feel" to define gender and then back to sex is not just "immoral." It's scientifically wrong. It's unreasonable, irrational, and the opposite of reality. If "truth" is "that which accords with reality," then transgenderism is not true, and we're ignoring it these days and encouraging it these days. Now ... from a Christian perspective, who do we recognize as "the father of lies"? Which will be your answer for our first question at the beginning.
7 comments:
I keep seeing "trans" people (biological males) taking about how horrible their periods are and one is advertising his use of tampons and the like. One wonders where this guy inserts said tampon, and how that works. One further wonders if these guys are disappointed when the remove the feminine protection products and don't see any of the bloody discharge that is inextricably part of the biological process of menstruation. I also wonder if they feel guilty for wasting these products which would seem to add to the amount of waste that ends up in landfills.
Of course, gender science, is much more of an objective discipline than biology.
Since a biological-male-to-transgender-female lacks the necessary components to have a period, it begs the question (further) of their sanity. Some report PMS, but it's not a period and it's only imagined. Crazy, crazy world.
For most of history, if someone claimed they had a condition which was biologically impossible for them to have, they would be labeled a hypochondriac at a bare minimum.
At the risk of crossing a boundary, do you think they douse their feminine protection products with food coloring?
I have heard of products that allow men to fake a period, down to "blood" bladders they can pop.
Here's what I don't get. If a baby is born without arms or legs and you set out to give him prosthetics to correct that condition, it's a glorious thing, but if you point out that science says that there are only two sexes and science suggests that much of our expression of those two sexes (gender) is a product of the two biological sexes, it's hate. If you take a teenager to get help for bipolar disorder, it's loving and if you take a teenager to get help for being confused about what sex their body should be, it's hate. That's not rational.
I don't think anyone ever had argued that the transgender position is rational, nobody can. But all that matters is feeling.
Stan,
I've seen some interesting discussion on this and how divorcing the physical from the non physical is helpful to certain agendas. If I remember correctly, it is intended to minimize the importance of biology, and increase the importance of the metaphysical.
Historically, the physical defined an objective reality which was the basis for how our mind related to the world. Now, everything in on the table. Why would anyone think that it's healthy to tell someone that their physical reality is wrong?
Post a Comment