Ten Transgender Truths for Legislators and Concerned Citizens
Whether you’re a lawmaker considering a “bathroom bill” or some other “transgender”-oriented legislation, or a citizen pondering a vote influencing the matter, you need the facts. The following are 10 “transgender” truths:
There is no sound science behind the transgender agenda. No “expert” can point to any physiological markers, in any given case, proving that at issue is a biological phenomenon and not a purely psychological one.
The “transgender” diagnosis is based purely on feelings relating to what’s called strong “cross-gender identification.” It’s no different from a cardiologist performing bypass surgery on a patient — without conducting any medical tests confirming heart disease’s presence — based solely on the person claiming he feels as if he has clogged arteries. Yet on this basis alone a psychiatrist may recommend that a child live as a member of the opposite sex and even, at some point, have body-rending “gender-reassignment surgery” (read: mutilation).
Strong “cross-gender identification” is defined as “gender dysphoria.” There is also “species dysphoria” — the sense of being an animal stuck in a human body — and Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), the strong sense that a body part or parts don’t belong on/in one’s body (e.g., legs, eyes). All three disorders are defined by “feelings.” There’s no more proof that gender dysphoria has a biological basis than there is that species dysphoria or BIID does.
Yet it wouldn’t matter if there were. Many abnormalities are inborn, such as Down syndrome, cleft palate, spina bifida and sickle-cell anemia. Anomalies are the exception proving the rule of normalcy; moreover, biology doesn’t determine morality.
To re-engineer society (e.g., open bathrooms to the opposite sex) based on transgender claims is to subordinate the feelings of the vast majority of the population to the feelings of less than one percent of it.
Proponents of transgender bathroom social engineering argue that such people have been using the opposite sex’s facilities for decades without raising objections. Yet this only proves that these individuals — who convincingly pass as the opposite sex — don’t need a law to gain access. Conclusion: The push to open bathrooms isn’t mainly about access; it’s about changing the way people think. Social engineering is the goal.
Some of those pushing transgender bathroom social engineering are autogynephiliacs: Men who derive sexual pleasure from dressing as women. They can be confused with those genuinely gender dysphoric, despite having a different disorder. Such people likely constitute an inordinate percentage of those accessing the opposite-sex’s bathrooms and committing sexual abuse.
Telling schoolchildren it’s normal to live as the opposite sex is child abuse. It’s as if we told them it’s normal to be species dysphoric and live as an animal: It warps their sense of reality.
Allowing men claiming woman status into women’s athletic events, on the basis that “hormone-replacement therapy” eliminates any natural advantage, reflects ignorance. The intersex sports-performance gap is profound — the mile record for 15-year-old boys is better than the women’s world record. And boys’ running records surpass those for girls’ even among prepubescent children. Allowing “trans” men into women’s competitions is no different from permitting a 20-stone heavyweight to box as a lightweight because he identifies as a 135-pounder.
“Gender” and “sex” aren’t synonymous. Even psychologists will tell you that “sex” is a biological distinction while “gender” is merely your perception of what you are. In reality, “gender” should only be applied to grammatical classifications (as it used to be). The quality of being male or female is properly known as “sex.”
Prejudice means to pre-judge and is defined as “an opinion formed beforehand, esp an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts.” For policy to not be based not on prejudice but principle, we must arm ourselves with the facts.
