Contradictions and Transgenderism: Joined at the Hip?

In a post at The Federalist, titled “Transgenderism is a Fake Legal Construct“, philosopher Daniel Moody, who blogs here, goes to the heart of the transgender issue, exposing key fallacies that displays fundamental problems with any legislation or public policies that arise from it.

Moody begins,

Mythology tells us there is an area of the Atlantic Ocean called the Bermuda Triangle, within which ships and aircraft have been known to vanish without a trace. With transgenderism, all reason and logic disappears within what we might call the Gender Triangle. The Gender Triangle is that area enclosed by the relationships between three distinct models of gender—the social, medical and legal. As we shall see, these relationships are flawed beyond repair.

It does seem that, in the push for complete human bodily autonomy, which one seriously must question, logic and reason do seem to get lost, and calling it, “the Gender Triangle” seems appropriate because of that.

Moody continues in a section subtitled, “Start with the Social and Medical Contradictions”, saying,

Feminist academic types use the term “gender” to denote the socio-cultural outworking of sexual difference, existing in the form of expected behaviours and appearances—i.e., stereotypes. These folk see gender as a limiting social construct that ought to be airbrushed out of existence for the sake of justice and equality.

So, I’m going to assume that by “gender” feminists are talking about roles. Indeed, there are natural roles that are particular to the definite biological differences between that which is male and that which is female. I’ve discussed here, that there is a distinct difference between equality and egalitarianism. Feminists seem to confuse them and, as a result, forget that the differences are what matter in certain areas.

Moody exposes this by stating the social problem writing,

Yet John, who is male-sexed, is now legally permitted to enter a female restroom on grounds of having appropriated for himself certain female stereotypes—make-up, long hair, and so on. In an apparent effort to erase stereotypes, the state has succeeded only in reinforcing them. Of course, the reason John seeks to appropriate the stereotypes that have clustered around femaleness is that it is not possible for him to appropriate femaleness itself. He can look like a female but cannot look as a female. (Emphasis original)

Notice, it is a matter of appropriating an external and superficial identity, not about changing anything on a base level. If John were to don a feathered headdress and desire to be called “Running Elk”, he would certainly be criticized for appropriating a culture, but an identity that is shaped by social construction, not so much.

Moody continues,

The second side of the Gender Triangle is the medical model. It says John can experience a difference between his sex and gender identity, with said difference falling within the sphere of medicine. Treatment may involve major surgery. The contradiction here is that certain countries permit John to change legal identity (“re-assign” gender) without surgery, hormone injections, or diagnosis. In Denmark, John need only fill in a couple of forms. (Emphasis added)

Hmmm, but he continues,

The emerging gold standard of gender re-assignment laws is that countries should implement a regime of self-declaration: When John says he is female, his saying so is also the very thing that makes him so. Unless we are to consider gender re-assignment to be some kind of talking therapy, we have another contradiction on our hands: How can a medical problem be cured by having the sufferer fill in a form? Transgender person, heal thyself? (Emphasis added)

Here we see the problem of human bodily autonomy: it focuses on fickle emotions. Feelings determine reality, and reality is determined by feelings. This is control-by-self.

Moody goes on to address a greater problem that he calls “pan-gender”, saying,

[If] gender identity is defined without reference to being embodied, there are infinite possible gender identities. If John has a newfound right to enter a restroom matching his gender identity, how many restrooms do we need according to gender theory? That’s right—infinite restrooms. But the state decides not to build them. Very wise. No, the state chooses to take the two existing restrooms—male and female—and collapse them into one gender-neutral restroom. This is subtraction in the name of addition. (Emphasis added)

This should expose a definite problem: when the government begins legislating on the basis of subjective feelings, where then can it stop? Laws, necessarily, should reflect reality, but when you lose the ability to define reality, what can be done?

Check out the rest of the essay, it’s both enlightening and frightening.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s