On the ‘Transgender’ Phenomenon

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill banning “trans athletes” from girls and women’s teams. “Trans athlete” here is the Associated Press term. AP’s Keven Feking reported on April 20, 2023:

Transgender athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth was male would be barred from competing on girls or women’s sports teams at federally supported schools and colleges under legislation pushed through Thursday by House Republicans checking off another high-profile item on their social agenda.

The bill approved by a 219-203 party-line vote is unlikely to advance further because the Democratic-led Senate will not support it and the White House said President Joe Biden would veto it.

Supporters said the legislation, which would put violators at risk of losing taxpayer dollars, is necessary to ensure competitive fairness. They framed the vote as supporting female athletes disadvantaged by having to compete against those whose gender identify [sic] does not match their sex assigned at birth.

Opponents criticized the bill as ostracizing an already vulnerable group merely for political gain.

The House action comes as at least 20 other states have imposed similar limits on trans athletes at the K-12 or collegiate level.

The bill would amend landmark civil rights legislation, known as Title IX, passed more than 50 years ago. It would prohibit recipients of federal money from permitting a person “whose sex is male” to participate in programs designated for women or girls. The bill defines sex as “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

Title IX forbids discrimination based on sex for any educational institution receiving federal financial assistance. Even in 1972, when Title IX was passed into law, it was complicated, which is why Title IX carried a slew of detailed exceptions. But the drafters of the original Title IX  law could not have foreseen that something so obvious as sex had to be defined. Title IX simply reads,

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:

It goes on at length detailing the nine exceptions. It does not define “sex.” Who would have thought that was necessary? In their wisdom, lawmakers obviously couldn’t foresee a day when American culture would sink to the cognitive level that would require sex to be explicitly defined.

But today, absurdly, “sex” needs to be explicitly defined. That is what the GOP legislation—H.R.734 - Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023— attempts to do. It defines sex as “an individual's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

Second, note the blatant Leftist/Woke bias in the article. Freking uses the idiotic term “sex assigned at birth,” implying that gender is merely an arbitrary assertion rather than an identification made strictly on the facts of reality—specifically, the easily observable and clearly differentiated sex organs of the newborn child. When my second child was born, the doctor’s first observation was that it was a boy. Then, after full birth, he said “oops, it’s a girl.” His “assignment” was the facts. The facts left him no choice: We had another girl.

Sex as an assignment? Silly? Yes. But this reality denial behind the absurd notion that sex is an “assignment” is worse than one might think at first glance. Wokism, an outgrowth of postmodernism, rejects objective reality, adhering instead to the “primacy of consciousness” branch of philosophy. Primacy of Consciousness is the premise that reality is a creation of the mind, which means that reality is whatever one wishes it to be. This is opposed to the Enlightenment premise, the “Primacy of Existence,” which holds that reality exists independent of any consciousness, that facts are facts, and that reality cannot be bent or molded to fit anyone’s wishes, beliefs, or desires. All of science is based on the Primacy of Existence. The opposite Primacy of Consciousness is the witch doctor’s view. Freking’s Woke “sex assigned at birth” nonsense is the voice of the witch doctor—literally primitivism infecting civilization like a deadly virus.

Think of what this means when gender identity invades education. Proper cognitive training is based on the primacy of existence. When you teach children that something as obvious as gender is a matter of personal choice, you are going down a dangerous road. You are blurring in the developing young child’s mind the crucial distinction between what is real and what is only in the child’s mind. That is not education. That is education destruction.

So, where does this leave the suddenly pervasive “transgender” political phenomenon? I believe there is something real to it. Scientific knowledge advances. It’s entirely possible that a person can be born mixed—for example, with the reproductive organs or physique of one sex but maybe the hormones or psychology of the other. Birth defects happen. Associated Press writers Sam Metz and Amancai Biraben report on the unfortunate experience of two young people, both minors, caught in such a gender dysphoria, and they and their parents’ heart-wrenching quest for medical treatment to deal with their issues amid political drives to ban transgender medical care for minors. I don’t doubt that there are legitimate concerns, both pro and con, about this treatment. But should the state get involved? Or is this a medical matter to be decided by the kid, his/her doctor, and the parents? Since children do not have the knowledge, experience, or legal right to decide, should children be subjected to gender alterations, or is this child abuse?

Jennifer Finney Boylan argues in To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body that gender is not merely a matter of biology. There is research suggesting that transgender brains are “something distinct.” Maybe. But the occasional birth defect doesn’t negate the fact that there are only two genders, identified by observable biological facts, not mind reading. 

I suspect that most transgenders are people following a fad, trying to “fit in,” make a political statement, maybe just be “cool.” But whether a transgender person has some natural abnormality or is someone kowtowing to their whimsy, I couldn’t care less. As a radical for individualism, I believe every person deserves respect as a person, with the same rights to his/her beliefs as anyone. My view can be summed up by paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are two genders, twenty genders, or no genders. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Where I draw the line is when a person seeks to force their beliefs or personal circumstances, real or imagined, on others—when it breaks a leg or picks a pocket, or is an excuse to cheat. Cheating is what the male is attempting to do when he bullies his way into women’s sports competition. People can self-identify all they want. But in the end, they should accept who and/or what they are. Male genitals indicate a male, and female genitals indicate a female. That’s reality. The world doesn’t revolve around any one individual, or group of individuals. You can prattle on about “vulnerable groups” or any other Woke group fantasies. But in the end, we are all individuals, independent of any group identity, and each of us deserves respect from others as individuals of reason and free will. Fantasy play does not entitle you to escape basic civility and common courtesy. You don’t get to change rules to fit your subjective personal identity. Yes, rules can and, on occasion, should, be changed as new knowledge or injustices are discovered. But changes must be made based on facts and fairness, not political correctness.   

In the end, each person is who they are—and a self-respecting person does just that, accepts who they are. But others are who they are, too, and you must accept that. No one gets to force their values on others. No one gets to bend rational societal norms willy-nilly. To quote Jefferson again, this time literally, with my emphasis: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This includes respecting rational rules, like observing rules restricting women’s sports to women only.

This is my first statement on so-called transgenderism. It may not be my last. My opinions are subject to refinement. No doubt, the knee-jerk reaction of some will be to label me a “transphobe.” But Woke dupes aside, this is a matter for rational debate. I am a person of reason. My starting point is the observable facts. On this issue, I’m open to new knowledge, new facts, new perspectives, and others’ opinions. 

As of now, let me summarize. You can no more choose your birth gender than you can choose your skin color or ethnic heritage.Transgenders, whatever their causes or circumstances, self-identified or real, are individuals with the same rights, privileges, moral responsibilities, and limits as anyone. No more, no less. They deserve respect, but also the responsibility to give equal respect to others. They live by the same laws and rules, and the same rights to work for change within the system as anyone. No more, no less. 

As to two of the related hot button issues of the day, transgenders who are biological males should not be allowed to compete in female sports, for obvious reasons. But that is a matter to be decided by the private sports entities, not the law. (Title IX complicates the issue, because federal funding gives the state a power it shouldn’t have.) The state should not be dictating medical care for kids with transgender problems, provided it is not part of a wider child neglect issue. This is a medical matter to be decided by the kid, his or her doctor, and, in normal circumstances, the parents. 

Every individual must accept who and what they are, and recognize that personal circumstances do not add to or take away one’s moral or legal rights and responsibility. Equity, it’s contemporary Woke redefining notwithstanding *, gives transgenders the right to fair and impartial recognition only within the rules, not outside the rules, such as placing biological males into women’s sports. Being arbitrarily slotted into some “historically marginalized” grouping, or some other such collectivist Woke category, is no excuse to imagine the world owes you some special treatment. We are all, after all, autonomous individuals, not group appendages. There is no right to unfettered inclusiveness, the contemporary Woke redefining of “inclusive” notwithstanding **. The principles of the Founding of this country are, as always, the basic frame of reference—the moral equality of each of us to self-govern via the inalienable individual  rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of one’s goals, values, and happiness, so long as you’re not picking pockets or breaking legs.

* [“Equity”, such as applies to DEI, has come to mean Egalitarianism, rather than it’s neutral meaning fair and impartial.]

** [”Inclusive,” the “I” in DEI, has come to mean the destruction of all rational standards, whereby anyone should be included in anything, regardless of context.]

Related Reading:

Biased Reporting, Hypocritical ‘Educators’

Ayn Rand on Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

Bad Schools and What to Do about Them, with Andrew Bernstein, interview with Jon Hersey for The Objective Standard

Beneath the Title IX Controversy

Links of Interest

To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body By Jennifer Finney Boylan

For transgender kids, a frantic rush for treatment amid bans By SAM METZ and AMANCAI BIRABEN for AP

980 New York Times Contributors Want To Sacrifice Free Inquiry to Ideology [Contains good explanation of the transgender phenomenon.] 

Prager U.: If You Can Choose Your Gender, Can You Choose Your Race? [0:00]

Biased Reporting, Hypocritical ‘Educators’

A 3/5/23 Washington Post news story, Florida bills would ban gender studies, limit trans pronouns, erode tenure, is a case study on biased reporting and hypocritical educators. The article by Hannah Natanson, Lori Rozsa and Susan Svrluga, opens with, 

Florida legislators have proposed a spate of new laws that would reshape K-12 and higher education in the state, from requiring teachers to use pronouns matching children’s sex as assigned at birth to establishing a universal school choice voucher program.

Note my highlighted portion. Sex is an observed biological fact. It is not “assigned” by anyone. Calling it “assigned” is Woke unreason, not objective reporting. An objective reporter would fact-check the idea that sex is assigned by anyone, and immediately conclude the falsity of the idea, based on the evidence. Of course, unpleasant facts are, well, unpleasant. That’s why there is a move in the journalism field to abandon objectivity altogether, on grounds that it is “a distortion of reality” and even racist—if you can believe it. Rather than accept the truth, even if uncomfortable, why not abandon objective truth and create your own truth to fit your narrative? This is a manifestation of what Ayn Rand identified as the primacy of consciousness, which is the opposite of what objective journalism is based on, the primacy of existence.

Teachers peddling this line—that sex is assigned, rather than observed, at birth—are guilty of gross educational malpractice. The observational biological facts are plain, and it is these facts, not choice or whim, that determines gender. Telling children that gender is a mere arbitrary designation, or “assignment”—at birth or at any time—is to undermine the ability of children to distinguish between what’s real and what’s only in her mind. This is the path to destroying the child’s rational faculty before it is even fully developed. It is a crime. It is monstrous.

Getting back to the Florida legislation, Rozsa and Svrluga write:

Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, warned that the legislation — especially the bill that would prevent students from majoring in certain topics — threatens to undermine academic freedom.

“The state telling you what you can and cannot learn, that is inconsistent with democracy,” Mulvey said. “It silences debate, stifles ideas and limits the autonomy of educational institutions which … made American higher education the envy of the world.”

On this issue, I posted this comment, edited for clarity:

Mulvey whines that “the legislation . . . threatens to undermine academic freedom.”  Is he joking? Aren’t these the same schools that happily soak in torrents of government money? Well, he who pays the piper, calls the tune. Mulvey apparently wants to have his government money, and eat it, too. If the Professors want a free reign, then don’t take government money. Otherwise, accept that you are accountable to the legislature, the taxpayers’ representatives.

“The state telling you what you can and cannot learn, that is inconsistent with democracy” is an even bigger joke. In fact, that is precisely what democracy is—electoral majority rule, with the emphasis on RULE. Apparently, Mulvey wants to have his democracy, and eat it, too. Well, it doesn’t work that way. In a democracy, your freedom is subject to majority rule—or, as Biden put it, “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow.” Indeed. If the elected legislature, the voters’ representatives, tells you how and what to teach, that’s it. You do it. Is the right to vote the right from which academic freedom flows—or not? The right to vote is primary, according to democracy. Like it or not, that’s democracy. Contrary to Mulvey, The state telling you what you can and cannot learn is perfectly consistent with democracy. Why should only educators decide what to teach? Majority rules, right?

People need to realize that government funding is tyranny. Fundamentally, it’s as simple as that. When funding is obtained voluntarily from willing consumers, educators can decide, and consumers can accept or go elsewhere. The state has no role, except to police the market for force and fraud. True academic freedom is the separation of education and state, under a constitutional republic with a democratic process of limited powers. In other words, the original American system, a free society based on unalienable individual rights, from which everything else, including the right to vote, flows. 

Related Reading:

Washington Budget Debacle Highlights Extent of Our Dependence on Government

Joe Biden—the Real Protégé of Jefferson Davis

The Dangerous Totalitarian Premise Underpinning the Justice Department’s Suit Against Georgia’s New Election Law

How About: Hands Off Our Money and Our Choice?

Bad Schools and What to Do about Them, with Andrew Bernstein, author of Why Johnny Still Can't Read or Write or Understand Math: And What We Can Do About It by Jon Hersey for The Objective Standard

What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx by Ludwig von Mises in Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War

DeSantis Reminds Public Universities of Uncomfortable Truth About ‘He Who Pays the Piper’: Public universities are complaining about Ron DeSantis's latest move. But do they have any right to object? By Lawrence W. Reed

Brad Thompson on “the unidentified, unacknowledged union of proslavery and progressive thought.”

In the epilogue of C. Bradley Thompson’s monumental new book, America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It, Thompson observes:

We now live in a world wrought by the unidentified, unacknowledged union of proslavery and progressive thought.

That astounding claim is explored in C. Bradley Thompson on America’s Revolutionary Mind, an interview with Bob Zadek.* Thompson observes that the reactionary turn against the philosophical and moral underpinnings of the American Founding began with the Southern pro-slavery intellectuals in the 1830s, which was Southern slavocracy’s response to the emergence of the Abolitionist movement. Though the South lost the Civil War, and with it their slavocracy, the reactionary philosophical ideas that underpinned the Confederacy’s defense of slavery were picked up almost verbatim by the Progressive Movement that began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and continue to this day. 

The whole exchange is well worth reading, of course. But the part that begins with Bob Zadek’s first question under the section headed The Slow Erosion of Liberty is of particular interest because it is so relevant to the contemporary state of America. In effect, we are still fighting the fight started by the abolitionists.

* [Unfortunately, the editing is very poor in this article, and there are a lot of grammatical errors. But Thompson’s thought nevertheless comes through loud and clear.]

Related Reading:

From Thompson’s critique of Radical Left Progressivism and New Right Reactionism

So, this is where we are in 2020. Like antebellum Southern slaveholders and post-bellum Progressives, today’s radical Left and Right share a common disgust for the principles of the American Founding.

America’s Moral Mind by Timothy Sandefur

Hong Kong and the enduring value of the Declaration of Independence BY REV. BEN JOHNSON 

[In Zadek’s interview, Thompson mentions that the Hong Kong protestors acted on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In this report, Johnson demonstrates the link. This is not particularly surprising. The ideas of the Declaration are key to what Thompson called “the moral magnet [of] freedom” the world over, and which brought millions of immigrants to America’s shores in the 19th and 20th Centuries, and to this day.]

The Collectivist Left Appropriates an Inhumane Christian Doctrine to Obliterate Americanism

Biden Cancels America

The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery

A New Textbook of Americanism — edited by Jonathan Hoenig

QUORA: 'We live in a totally different world now. Shouldn't the Constitution be reinterpreted to match our reality?’

 QUORA: Constitutional literalists treat the opinions of the Founding Fathers as though they were God-inspired. We live in a totally different world now. Shouldn't the Constitution be reinterpreted to match our reality?’

I posted this answer:

No, because nothing fundamental about “our reality” has changed. 

The Founding of America grew out of certain Enlightenment discoveries. To wit:

• All individuals are beings of reason and free will, the attributes that distinguish humans from all other life forms. 

• Individual human beings are autonomous beings, each possessing their own minds and capable of using the judgment of their own minds to guide the course of their own lives. 

• These unique characteristics make each individual morally entitled to be free to do so. It follows that each individual is morally entitled to the equal individual liberty rights to self-govern their own lives, however different or “unequal” their individual abilities, virtue, character, background, ethnicity, values, interests, temperament, and life outcomes, et al.* 

• To secure this freedom, every person needs the guarantee of certain inalienable rights, including rights to life, liberty, and the personal pursuit of happiness.

• As per Nature’s mandate, individual human beings must work to support their lives, so the ability to produce, keep, use, and dispose of the product of one’s labor must be legally protected both from private criminals and despotic governments. Hence, the rights to his own earned property.

• Freedom needs the rule of objective law to exist, so governments must be instituted to secure these individual rights, equally, at all times, for all.

• Powerlust is still endemic to the human condition, so governments can still be breeding grounds of tyranny. Therefore, they must be structurally designed with enough checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from accumulating too much political power.

Yes, today’s world is materially far different from the world of 1787. But the worlds of ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and the Dark and Middle Ages were “totally different” from 1787. Yet the Founders studied history, as well as their contemporary world, to draw lessons useful in framing the Constitution of the new nation. But they were not mere pragmatists. They also consulted the guidance of major philosophers of the Ages, in order to meld theory and practice into a workable, liberty-protecting government. Above all, they understood that human nature, the laws of nature, and man’s relationship to broader nature are immutable and unchanging. So they designed a Constitution to support the basic principles of a free human society, not just for their own contemporary world, but with an eye firmly cognizant of posterity. Drawing from history, philosophy, and contemporary experience, they designed a Constitution consistent with what they called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and capable of being sustained through all of the changes of future ages. Just read the Federalist Papers, and you’ll see the broad scope of their thinking, and how they adapted the principles they discovered to the practical challenge of creating an effective government while protecting individual liberty. Essentially, the philosophy that guided their work is consolidated in these words: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

This is not to say that the Constitution should never be amended or clarified through law or court interpretation. Yes, today’s world is materially much different, and so are many issues that concern us today. The Constitution can certainly be refined, and the Founders understood that. For example, the Electoral College was amended in 1804. It was further clarified by Congress in 1887. That Act is currently being reconsidered by Congress once again, and has a good chance of enactment. Yet, through these changes, the Electoral College continues to function well to facilitate transfers of presidential power while maintaining its function as a check on federal and majoritarian power. Note that these changes do not harm the basic Electoral College system, which is part of the cheeks-and-balances the Founders saw as vital to protecting balanced government and thus liberty. While the Electoral College outlived its means of implementation, it did not outlive its usefulness. 

The Founders weren’t “God-inspired,” despite what Religious Right revisionists claim. And I don’t know any Constitutional scholars who believe that. In the Federalist Papers, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton explain the workings of the Constitution, and the reasons for them. I read the Federalist Papers cover to cover, and I do not recall any mention of religion or God except in relation to religious freedom or the Laws of Nature. There were no phrases such as “God said” or “God mandates” or “God inspires us to ...,” or the like. The Founders explicitly rejected the union of religion and state in any form. The Founders were men of The Enlightenment, meaning men of reason and reality orientation. 

As the Founders understood, we should always seek “a more perfect union.” But the U.S. Constitution should not be reinterpreted in its fundamental philosophical orientation, because the Constitution already conforms to reality in its fundamentals. In their practical genius, the Founders created a changeable constitution oriented around unchanging natural principles. Today’s world is not “totally different.” Nothing fundamental has changed from 1787—not human nature; not the laws of nature; and not man’s relationship to broader nature. Yes, new lessons of experience and history can be drawn. But the laws of nature cannot be “reinterpreted.” They are immutable facts of reality. Thus, the principles of the Founding have not changed. These principles, from which come individual rights and limited government, are fundamental to America because they are fundamental to the free civilized society proper to human beings. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* [Individual rights define the scope and boundaries of human freedom; in effect, you have the right to freedom of action, so long as your actions don’t infringe on the same rights of others. See Tara Smith, Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy.)]

Related Reading:

Will the World's Statist Past, or the Founders' Values, be America's Destiny?

America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It by C. Bradley Thompson

In Gay Marriage Decision, the Court Upheld the Founders' Vision

The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur

The Founders Were Flawed. The Nation Is Imperfect. The Constitution Is Still a 'Glorious Liberty Document.' -- Timothy Sandefur

In SCOTUS’ Draft Opinion Overturning Roe Abortion Ruling: Double Standards of Left and Right Exposed

QUORA: ‘How would you describe Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism?’

 QUORA: ‘How would you describe Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism?’ [sic]

I posted this very succinct answer:

I describe Objectivism as a philosophy of life before death.

For a little more detail, see Crawford’s answer.

For more depth, visit Introduction to Objectivism.

A Few Passing Thoughts on Objectivism

A few years ago, Anoop Verma shared an article on Facebook from his Verma Report titled Is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism a Philosophy? The article is no longer available. But Verma’s preamble indicates hostility toward Objectivism:

My honest view of Ayn Rand's objectivism:

"There is more than one excuse for being an Ayn Rand, but there is no excuse whatsoever for being an objectivist."

I posted this comment:

Rand is to philosophy what Pavarotti is to opera. Pavarotti brought opera out of the highbrow world of the Italian elites to the enjoyment of the popular “masses”. Rand brought philosophy out of the Ivory Tower and made it a practical life guide for the average person. 

I’ll leave it to “philosophers” to debate how many angels (or straw men) can dance on the head of a pin. Objectivism has given me valuable insights and principles, in clear and understandable terms, that has helped me navigate life and make sense of the world. As a practical philosophy, Objectivism is invaluable.

A comment thread ensued, which is available here. Following are two replies of mine responding to others’ comments. 

I'm with you, Rich. Any belief system, whether or not it fits some technical definition of a philosophy, can be treated as a dogma. I have found that Objectivism, when applied diligently, works against dogmatism. But you always have to be on guard against the temptation of dogmatism, even with Objectivism. 

---------------------------------------------------------

Philosophically, rationalism is a belief in innate knowledge divorced from observation or experience. Peikoff has a book, “Objective Communication,” that has a whole chapter on rationalism. The Objectivist position holds that “Knowledge is . . . the integration of logic and experience, not an either-or situation.” 

Sean, I’m not sure what you mean by “the Peikoff brigade” a while back. He used the analogy of the spiral, with the top of the spiral being abstraction, and the bottom representing concrete reality. The point is to keep one’s abstractions grounded in reality, even as one draws out the abstract principles involved. I found it quite helpful. 

Related Reading:

Pavarotti and Rand

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff