SHARED LINKS ARE BELOW!
The subject matter surrounding LGBTQ rights has experienced a shift in its discourse. Originally rooted in the pursuit of equal human rights, the conversation, primarily about “TQ” part, has now veered towards adopting an ideological stance. This ideological lens tends to disregard scientific insights into the intricacies of human sexuality and its manifestations within biological and sociological contexts. Concepts like gender studies, among others, amalgamate various diametrically different aspects under a single umbrella, inadvertently generating confusion, as well as ammunition for those who argue in bad faith that matters concerning the rights of the transgender community have become irrelevant or socially destructive. The criticism that the movement has become entangled within an ideological framework slowly proves to be likely true, which doesn’t sit well with the SJWs, and as a consequence, these groups reject any objective debate on this matter. Therefore, this has sidelined the conversation, leaving religious conservatives, right-wing fanatics and their ideological pundits to take advantage of legitimate questions regarding the social and biological aspects of transgenderism. The movement itself has been unable to engage in objective and non-ideological criticism, discouraging any examination that doesn’t align with the belief that the concept of “sex” doesn’t exist, and that “gender” is what replaces it, implying the existence of more than two sexes within the human species. Additionally, individuals who objectively and scientifically dare to question these views often face immediate condemnation as right-wing conservatives leading to their public discrediting by social justice advocates.
While there are individuals, such as Jordan Peterson, who make genuine efforts to address this question adequately, their, as well as his criticism often tends to aim at integrating the findings into a preexisting ideological framework. This distinction distinguishes these critics (who often serve as the primary ideological inspiration for authentic conservative movements, usually religiously motivated) from critics who do not seek to assimilate the outcome of criticism into a novel or current ideological paradigm.
As already mentioned, the topic at hand has been subject to a number of misunderstandings, often attributed to the actions of social justice advocates. These misunderstandings have inadvertently allowed certain right-wing factions to exploit the situation for their own agendas, thus diluting the core issue of human rights: the equal and respectful treatment of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation and believed gender identity. Initially, the general consensus was in favour of this notion, because people tend act humane and with understanding, except of ideological conservatives. However, the response of social justice advocates to this general consensus deemed it inadequate, as they aimed to establish transgenderism as a genetic norm same as sex, for which there is no factual evidence. With that being said, there are some not yet clearly explained scientific data regarding the biochemical (biological) basis of transgenderism (meaning: how brains construct beliefs and convictions about personal reality). However, it is important to note that this topic is distinct from the aspects that social justice movements advocate for as part of their agenda. Simultaneously, conservative commentators tend to overlook these factual insights with the intention of discrediting the notion that the human brain is an intricately complex entity. This was partly due to the failure of gender studies to effectively differentiate between the biological, social, and legal aspects of sex and gender, often used interchangeably. Some social justice advocates erroneously interpreted this supposed lack of distinction as proof and an argument for the dismissal of biological sex. Consequently, it is not surprising that these individuals reject the scientific consensus that human beings have biologically determined bimodal sexes while acknowledging the sociological exploration of diverse expressions as gender identity [in some instances it would be more proper to talk about sexual orientations instead of gender].
As indicated previously, here are simplified clarifications of the most important aspects that often get confused.
- In the realm of biological evolution, it is recognized that humans are classified into two sexes, based on the distinctiveness of their gametes. It is important to acknowledge that there can be variations in psychological development that may impact one’s sexual orientation, leading to a disparity between biological sex and sexual affections (e.g., individuals identifying as gay, lesbian, etc.). However, such variances or deviations do not imply the existence of additional distinct sexes. Rather, they are natural occurrences that should be accepted without prejudice. It is crucial to emphasize the notion that every human being deserves equal treatment, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The confusion surrounding this matter often stems from an inability to distinguish these concepts, which is an important facet to address.
- The sociological aspect pertaining to gender explores how individuals utilize their biological sexes and sexual orientations within the context of human communication. It is worth noting that certain animal species do engage in sexual contact between various sexes as a means of social bonding, suggesting that such behaviour is not inherently abnormal. However, it is important to distinguish between these social practices* and the biological concept of sex [anatomical as well as biochemical differences between sexes], which remains limited to two distinct categories.
- Legal considerations pertain to how society regulates interactions and communications in relation to sex and sexual orientation. However, it is crucial to avoid misusing these considerations to forcefully alter scientific definitions of sex* and sexual affiliations merely to conform to a particular ideological agenda, as is currently evident. Simultaneously, it is important to acknowledge that scientific definitions exist to prevent the misuse of factual information by right-wing movements, rather than to fuel their fallacious arguments. Therefore, it is essential for liberal movements to approach the discussion surrounding scientific facts in a positive and objective manner, without surrendering the narrative to right-wing rhetoric.
The transgender rights movement has garnered attention and sparked discussions among various communities. However, it is noteworthy that there has been a significant level of criticism and scepticism surrounding the late development of this movement. Some individuals have raised valid concerns and highlighted certain ideological inconsistencies within the movement, which have unfortunately been exploited by certain factions to promote discriminatory attitudes towards the transgender community.
The utilization of terms such as “cis” instead of “heterosexuality” by the transgender movement raises questions about the assertiveness of the movement. It is also ethically dubious to impose such concepts on children without providing them with a comprehensive understanding of the biological foundation, as this can lead to misunderstandings during their developmental stages. It is important to allow children to preserve the innocence and joy of their childhood, rather than subjecting them to any kind of ideological indoctrination. Instead, we ought to focus on instilling values of kindness and respect towards all individuals, irrespective of their assigned definitions, pronouns, and other identities. Our genetic composition, which contributes to our sexuality, physical attributes, susceptibility to diseases, and other medical conditions, should not dictate our ethical treatment towards fellow human beings. For instance, an individual with a genetically influenced cardiovascular condition (such as myself) may have limitations in certain physical activities, but this does not impede intellectual capacity, moral discernment, ability to engage in alternative forms of work, or entitlement to fair and equitable treatment as any other person.
A fantastic set of interviews with Helen Joyce from different perspectives — Shermer, a psychologist; Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist; and Boghossian, a philosopher — concerning this matter can be found below. Helen Joyce has been unjustly labelled by transgender communities as being anti-gay, anti-Semitic, and racist, among other unfounded accusations. However, it is essential to recognize that such characterizations are entirely baseless. Upon listening to her speeches, it becomes evident that she genuinely cares about these communities on various levels. Nonetheless, she chooses not to employ fallacious arguments or adopt a disingenuous approach merely to appease transgender communities and receive favorable feedback. She confidently stands apart from religious apologists and right-wing commentators, such as Matt Walsh, who exploit transgenderism for their own purposes and distort scientific facts to reinforce ideological biases, particularly rooted in religion and homophobia as societal norms.
also here:
and here:
An esteemed scholar who has contributed significantly to the discourse on social outreach and the implications of contemporary transgenderism is Kathleen Stock, a renowned British philosopher and author:
Scientifically Literate Junction 