I have no idea where to find the quote, but someone commented the one of the left's least endearing behaviors was a tendency to stake out a radical and highly controversial position and treat it, not just as settled fact, but as something no right-thinking person could dissent from.
Such was the case with gay marriage; such is the case now with transgenderism. Rod Dreher once commented on gay marriage that liberals would always dismiss the matter of whether people could be compelled to take part in a gay marriage as too minor an issue to be upset about, to why he would respond that if it is such a minor issue, why are you unwilling to concede it.
Much the same applies to transgender sports. People on our side dismiss it as such a minor issue as not to be worth getting upset about, mostly because the numbers are so small. But somehow, they are never willing to concede this very minor issue.
When people get so worked up about so minor an issue, with neither side willing to make any concessions, it strongly suggests that the minor issue is the tip of the iceberg, standing for something much larger. In this case, the real underlying issue is how one defines gender at all.
To avoid confusion, let me clarify my terms. For purposes of this discussion, I will use the following definitions:
Gender: The state of being a man, woman, boy, girl, male, female, or whatever other gender one can come up with, regardless of how that state of being is defined.
Sex/biological sex: A biological and medical classification as male, female or intersex.
Natal sex: Biological and medical sex at birth, as defined by one's genes and reproductive system.
Gender identity: One's subjective sense of one's own gender.
The real issue underlying the question of transgender athletes is whether gender (the state of being male or female) is defined by objective biological and medical facts, or by subjective state of mind. In other words, is gender determined by natal sex, biological sex or by gender identity.
This frequently gets conflated with another issue -- whether biological sex is binary or a spectrum. The underlying assumption, seemingly accepted by both sides, is that if biological sex is binary, then gender must be determined by objective biological sex, but if biological sex is a spectrum, then gender identity must prevail. I don't see that this follows at all.
Let's start with some basics. Intersex people exist. This is not seriously disputed. People disagree how exactly being intersex is defined, some defining it more broadly than others. Certainly, there are edge cases that are not easily classified as male or female. Some people say that even these edge cases can still be classified as either male or female depending on whether their gonads are geared toward producing eggs or sperm.
I say, so what?
Most transgender controversies do not involve these edge cases. They involve cases in which gender identity conflicts with clear-cut natal sex.
I do not see it logically follows from the existence of some edge cases that do not readily classify as biologically male or female that being male or female is always and necessarily a matter of subjective identification rather than objective biology.
It is perfectly possible to believe that:
- Intersex people exist;
- Reasonable minds can differ on how intersex is defined;
- Some edge cases don't readily classify as biologically male or female;
- Outside of this very small number of edge cases, being male or female is nonetheless a matter of objective biology.
I suppose it is also possible to believe that:
- Biological sex is defined by gametes and is binary;
- Gender exists independent of biological sex and is subjective.
Next point: Intersex people have
been around for a long time. Whether to classify them as legally male or female has been seen as important because historically, men and women have not been equal in the eyes of the law, so the individual's rights depended on classification.
Well, our society views things differently. We see men and women as equal, except in certain matters where biological and medical status compels a distinction. Women used to be denied the right to vote, to own property, to contract and sue, to serve on juries, etc. etc. And well after that, women were denied credit cards, car rentals, certain types of jobs, etc.
We don't take that viewpoint anymore. We believe that men and women should be treated equally in employment, housing, access to credit, etc. etc. In other words, in most contexts, we have concluded that it should not matter whether one is biologically or medically male or female, they still should have the same rights. And in such cases, one doesn't really have to worry too much whether we equate gender with subjective self-definition or objective biology. Either way, transgenders should be treated the same as anyone else.
Admittedly, equal legal and commercial rights are not the whole picture. Men and women may be legally and commercially equal and still be socially treated differently. Examples might include what subjects it is acceptable to discuss, how expansively one expresses one's self, what jokes may acceptably be told and the like. Inn terms of social interaction we might treat men and women differently, but the difference is based on outward presentation, rather than biology. In other words, transgenders who present as their gender identity rather than their natal sex can reasonably receive the sort of etiquette that is normal for their gender identity. Bodies are still not what matters.
But there is simply no denying that there are times when bodies do matter. Examples might include sports, changing rooms, other places where nudity is common, rape crisis centers, medical care, prisons, or sexual relationships. These things are still sex-segregated, even to this day, because bodies and biological status really do matter, and because it really is significant that men are bigger and stronger than women and women need to be protected.
So far as I can tell, the usual transgender response in those cases is distinguish natal sex from biological sex. Yes, there are biological and medical differences that give men an advantage. Those differences are the result of hormones. Taking hormones removes the advantage that natal males have over natal females. I am a little unclear whether that means that natal males turn into biological females when they take female hormones, or that biological sex can be rendered irrelevant by hormone treatment. But so far as I can tell, most transgender advocates don't parse these fine points. They simply say that transgender women are women and to question that is a violation of the most basic human rights.
In other words, they are taking a radical and highly controversial position and treating it, not just as settled fact, but as something no right-thinking person could dissent from. And, as mentioned at the outset, this invariably leads to major resentment.
No comments:
Post a Comment