As noted in the preceding article, the normalization of transgenderism, or self-defined sexuality, eradicates any objective distinction between men and women, and would be legally effected by the proposed Equality Act. Its impact would be severely felt by a not insignificant number of American families, who will face legal and social pressure to accept the self-identification of any family member claiming to be a member of the opposite sex. Specific cases of severe personal consequences were discussed in the first part of the panel discussion reviewed; the origins of transgenderism and its severe consequences for groups that have been part of the sexual revolution were reviewed in the second part.
Hacsi Horvath, an expert in epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California in San Francisco, discussed the background of transgenderism over the last several decades. He said that transgenderism is based on the assertions of a few psychologists in the 1960s. But evidence accumulated since then to support transgenderism—the belief that one belongs to the sex opposite that of one’s body—is “spin … there’s enormous gaps. It takes a huge leap of faith to even say that there’s anything” plausibly connecting the facts to support gender theory. “There’s probably ten or twenty other explanations for any associations that you see” in data concerning sex confused people which is held to support gender theory. On the other hand, once puberty blockers are administered to sex confused children, they continue on them in all known cases, Horvath said. Another contributor to transgenderism, he said, is a “mass craze” of gender dysphoria (confusion as to one’s sexual identity). But it is more severe than an ordinary craze, such as eating disorder, because it involves “medical interventions” to support the delusion.
Another problem noted by Horvath is that at least 30 percent of persons going through sex transitioning are “lost to follow-up.” He said than in any other area, such as HIV populations, such a high percentage of lost follow-up would be an “emergency.” Yet another problem is that doctors routinely refer sex confused patients to gender clinics, believing this is cutting edge medicine. But the science supporting transgenderism is “complete junk,” which the average doctor does not have time to assess. “Society is sort of indoctrinated,” he said.
Julia Beck, a writer and organizer who produces a monthly radio broadcast for Woman’s Liberation Radio News, and formerly of Baltimore’s LGBTQ Commission, said she was at the Heritage Foundation because there is “no place for me.” Having been the only lesbian on the commission, she was removed for insisting that only biological women can be lesbians, and for using a male pronoun to refer to a biologically male rapist who attacked two women at a women’s prison to which he had been transferred because he identified as a woman. Unsurprisingly, she was “found guilty of violence” for using the pronoun. Against claims that self-defined sexuality is the next stage of sexual liberation, she asked “how we can be homosexual if sex is fake.” Yet this writer would observe that it is the logical result of the self-defined reality so well expressed by Justice Kennedy in the Casey decision (1992) to protect abortion. The court declared that people define their own realities in “intimate” matters. Thus the logic used to protect and advance the sexual revolution is destroying sex.
Kara Dansky, a board member of the Women’s Liberation Front, emphasized that the self-defined sexuality demanded by transgenderism will effectively mean the end of the natural sexual categories of male and female. Thus all of the protections the law affords women will be wiped out. She referred specifically to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal aid. She observed that it was passed “specifically to protect women and girls,” prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, but allows, in its “implementing regulations” sex segregated spaces, such as rest rooms. But the meaning of “sex” was radically altered by a “guidance letter” from the Obama Administration in 2016 which said that the word “sex” in Title IX should be interpreted to mean gender identity. Since self-defined sex is effectively meaningless, this “guidance” in fact “obliterated” the possibility of sex segregated spaces, or any real protections Title IX affords to biological women.
Although the Trump Administration has withdrawn the guidance, and it was never law, schools are very confused about how they “are supposed to deal with claims of discrimination brought by trans-identified students.” Litigation flowing from this situation is now moving through the courts, Dansky said. But whether the Supreme Court or Congress declare sex to mean gender identity, it “means effectively that women and girls will no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protection.” The proposed Equality Act would do that. “It would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gender identity as a legally protected category for civil rights purposes in places of public accommodation … [it] would also require institutions that receive federal funding … to consider sex to mean gender identity for all purposes … [it] sounds all well and good [but] is an unmitigated disaster for women and girls.”
In response to questions, Chavez observed that coercion is important in maintaining gender ideology as a narrative of liberation in the mainstream. Loss of jobs, friends, and family relationships can ensue from open opposition to the transgender narrative, as Horvath indicated. But he said it is important not to use the language of gender ideology. Don’t say “trans woman,” for instance. Here people should take the penalty if speaking the truth is illegal, he said. Beck said that “giving cover is really important.” Dansky observed that many people do not understand the money and power opponents of gender ideology are up against, and the effective exclusion of contrary voices from the mainstream.
It might be added to comments made by the panelists that transgenderism is truly a radical revolution, attacking so basic a reality as the sexual nature of human beings. As with other revolutions, the sexual revolution is eating its children, who have no new stable reality, having attacked all reality in the name of their overriding revolutionary concern. The revolution is destroying sex, the thing it aimed to liberate. But this is to be expected, since the proper approach to sexual issues was understood to be based on whatever reality the revolutionaries want, not a reality people always and everywhere have to accept. Instead, people everywhere are pressured to accept what the revolution wants.
Another consequence of the revolution is what might be called “the sovereignty of the present.” What one was in the past, responsibilities to others rooted in the past, and future realities and responsibilities are not important. What is important is what one wants now. The ultimate result of the youth rebellion of the 1950s and 1960s is, perhaps, showing its face in identity politics, and in particular, in transgenderism.
History does not stop for revolutions. Everyone must deal with their consequences, and the world must go on. People are blessed to have God’s commandments, which are designed for the world as it really is. A reality-defying government, at war with God and his creation, may make life difficult for faithful Christians, but it is always possible to obey God, regardless of the consequences. What those consequences will be, according to the provisions of the Equality Act as now written, will be explored in a subsequent article.