The Transgender Argument
The Rights Biggest Red Herring
Lately, I’ve been pelted with questions regarding the transgender issue. While this issue is certainly complex and often riddled with emotions, fallacies, and biases… I’ve decided to weigh in on the topic from a unique perspective.
I find it ironic quite a few Bible literalists, climate change denying, conspiracy theories, and creationist conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene want to bring up biology. Individuals like this do not want to bring up the scientific discipline in good faith but as a device for their political means.
Religion and The Right
Let’s be frank, the crux of the transgender debate and current debates about sexuality is religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions like Christianity. We see this with numerous conservative politicians/policies attempting to blur the lines between religion and state.
Examples include:
⁃ bringing prayer back into school.
⁃ Using religious prayer in political rallies
⁃ Having “spiritual advisors” added to the presidential cabinet
⁃ Prohibiting talks about sexuality and sexual orientation in schools.
… and more.
The American right has a strong connection with evangelist Christianity which is often vehemently opposed to homosexuality, open gender identity, and transgenderism.
Biology Versus Ideology
Sex determination between males and females is not so straightforward in humans or animals.
The evidence in neuroscience also seems to suggest brain and neural differences between cisgender and transgender individuals.
So, we have to establish upfront that this argument over “biological sex” is very much influenced by religious/political beliefs than actual science. Especially considering how the argument is used to deny science in the first place.
I’ve received the following messages:
- “If the libs can deny biological sex, then how can we trust them when it comes to covid?”
- “If you’re for science, what are your views about biological sex?”
- “Supporting transgenderism is anti-science.”
These are just some of the arguments and comments I’ve encountered on the topic. But these comments are ultimately used as red herrings to justify the person's denial of science.
A red herring argument tends to divert people’s attention from the original topic under discussion. Typically by bringing up irrelevant questions or topics into the original discussion.
The discussion over transgender rights is separate from whether climate change is real, vaccines are safe, humans evolved through evolution, and the earth isn’t flat. Therefore, one cannot use their disagreement over this separate issue to justify their beliefs on other issues.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, most people online are too ignorant or too emotional about the transgender issue to have a rational discussion about the topic.
We didn’t even get into transgender athletes in sports, transgender individuals and bathroom access, and more. But even if I did touch upon these topics there is too much outrage from the political right, most of whom use dichotomous thinking and emotive language to push their narrative.
On the flip side I have to tread carefully as fellow leftists are defensive against any sort of argument (evidence-based or not) that does not conform to their views.
Nevertheless, Religion is a major driving force of this narrative but it is not the only driving force.
It perplexes me that the party for “freedom” against mandates, vaccinations, lockdowns, and masks wants to dictate what schools teach, how people identify themselves, and bodily autonomy related to reproductive health.
Maybe because it isn’t about “freedom” but the projection of political aims, this is why I often scuff at the “freedom argument” used to rationalize disdain for science, truth, and objectivity.