The ferocious transgender dispute is framed by the language of gender identity. To reach any resolution, though, we need to understand what everyone has at stake and to question our own basic assumptions. The truth about what it means to be transgender is a window into human nature, sexual desire, and the limits of language.
Autogynephilia — literally “to love oneself as a woman” — is controversial stuff. Men are not supposed to fancy themselves; at least they weren’t when I grew up in the Eighties. Back then, the idea that any of us might be “sexually aroused by the thought or image of our self as a girl” was unthinkable.
Kathleen Stock recently suggested in UnHerd that autogynephilia (AGP) was a motive for “some but not all within the male trans demographic” to immerse themselves in the fiction of changing sex. Ray Blanchard, the sexologist who coined the terminology, went further. Last year, he told me that “in the Western Hemisphere and English-speaking Commonwealth countries, the overwhelming majority of adult natal males presenting with gender dysphoria are of the autogynephilic type”.
Agradeço a Daniel Reynaldo por traduzir meu artigo para o português.
Sentimentos e opiniões deslocaram fatos e evidências em muitas áreas das ciências humanas. Isso não é novidade. Um fenômeno mais recente, no entanto, é a extensão dessa tendência no campo da biologia, que foi vítima da ideia de que os homens podem se tornar mulheres – e vice-versa – apenas recitando uma declaração de crença. É um movimento insidioso que combina o desprezo pós-moderno pela verdade objetiva com superstições religiosas pré-modernas sobre a natureza da alma humana.
A subordinação da ciência ao mito foi exemplificada no recente caso britânico de Maya Forstater, que perdeu o emprego depois de apontar a pura verdade de que pessoas trans como eu não podem mudar nosso sexo biológico por proclamação. “Concluo a partir de … da totalidade das evidências, que [Forstater] é absolutista em sua visão do sexo e é um componente essencial de sua crença que ela se referirá a uma pessoa pelo sexo que considerou apropriado”, concluiu o juiz James Tayler no seu tribunal da justiça trabalhista. “A abordagem não é digna de respeito em uma sociedade democrática.”
Transsexuals like me never asked to be at the centre of one of the most toxic debates in society; we just wanted to transition and get on with our lives. But what was once a niche medical condition has become a civil rights issue so big that it now challenges our understanding of what it means to be a man or woman.
From using terms like ‘chestfeeding’ to claiming campaigning against trans electoral candidates is transphobic, trans activism has changed from an earnest campaign for rights into a mission to replace evidence with emotions.
Feelings and opinions have displaced facts and evidence in many areas of the liberal arts. This is nothing new. A more recent phenomenon, however, is the extension of this trend into the realm of biology, which has fallen victim to the idea that men can become women—and vice versa—merely by reciting a statement of belief. It is an insidious movement that combines the postmodern contempt for objective truth with pre-modern religious superstitions regarding the nature of the human soul.
The subordination of science to myth was exemplified in the recent British case of Maya Forstater, who’d lost her job after pointing out the plain truth that transgender people like me cannot change our biological sex by proclamation. “I conclude from…the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate,” concluded Judge James Tayler at her employment tribunal. “The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
From my earliest memories I struggled in a society delineated by sex. The rules were different for boys and girls, from what we could wear to how we related to society. Certainly, the expectations placed on me, as a three-year-old boy, were very different to those experienced by three-year-old girls.
Some of this was external – I was told that I would grow up to be big and strong – but we are all curious combinations of nurture and nature, and much was driven from within. I longed to be a girl from before I could speak in full sentences; without the capacity to explain my reasons, even to myself. But, at the same time, the taboo against wearing clothes marketed at girls was already hardwired into my mind.
Debbie Hayton