Gender Essentialism and Trans Ideology (2)
Part 2: General reflections on issues of gender mutability, gender stereotypes, trans ideology, and so-called "gender affirming care" (GAC)
Is Gender (or Gender identity) mutable?
One of the four elements of an essentialist belief about gender (see part 1 for a more extended description of what is meant by an “essentialist” view of gender) is that gender is immutable – that is, that one’s gender is fixed and unchangeable (BTW — when I refer to gender, I am primarily referring to what some call “gender identity”, not to biological sex). The major finding from the study reviewed in part 1 of this posting was that the children presented the “I Am Jazz” story (about the real transgender child, Jazz Jennings) scored higher on measure of belief in gender mutability than did children presented no story at all. In other words, the attempt by the authors to teach children (by presenting the “I Am Jazz” story) that gender is mutable was somewhat successful.
What is odd about this finding is that (as I noted in part 1), in the story “I Am Jazz”, there is no claim that Jazz changed gender identities at any time. Indeed, the whole point of the story, and of the way in which Jazz has been described in the media, is that Jazz has always really been a girl, but just happens to be a girl who was born in a boy’s body. Thus, the supposed “lesson” of Jazz’s life is not that gender is mutable, and not that a boy can become a girl, but rather that gender identity is immutable – that we are born with a particular gender identity and that gender identity cannot be changed – but also that gender identity and biology are not necessarily linked.
This feature of the I Am Jazz story, and of the research study reviewed in part 1, raises the more general issue of the stance that trans ideology takes on the question of the mutability of gender identity.
Gender ideology posits that each of us has a gender identity that is somehow something psychologically deeper and more central to our being than any other elements of our sense of self, and according to this ideology, gender identity has no inherent relationship with biology. Accordingly, there are some people whose gender identity matches the sex-related features of their bodies (people who are “cisgender”) and some for whom that is not the case (people who are “transgender”). Thus, Jazz Jennings may have had a penis at birth, but according to this ideology Jazz nonetheless had a “girl” gender identity. And Jazz did not have a “girl” identity because of an interest in prototypically “girl” activities; rather, Jazz preferred those activities because of Jazz’s “girl” gender identity.
If one accept all of that, the question then becomes whether our gender identity is something we are born with and whether it is mutable. At times, it seems as if trans ideology proponents strongly support the view that gender identity IS mutable. Perhaps highly mutable. Thus, for example, according to this view of gender, there are some people who are “gender fluid” – people who might feel like a male one day (that is — have a male gender identity one day) but then have a female gender identity the next. And if one is going to argue against an “essentialist” conceptualization of gender (as the authors of the article reviewed in part 1 were doing), then one would be arguing against the view that gender identity is immutable and in favor of the idea that gender is mutable.
The phenomenon of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) similarly argues for gender identity as a feature of the self that is mutable. During the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of adolescent (early to mid-teen years) females declaring themselves transgender and expressing a desire to transition to becoming a male. Unlike Jazz Jennings (whose apparent gender dysphoria was evident from an early age according to Jazz’s mother), most of these girls have not exhibited signs of gender dysphoria prior to the approach and beginning of their puberty (although many have had OTHER psychological issues — in particular, high levels of anxiety and depression, and high rates of autism spectrum disorder). Transgender ideologues have not questioned the reality of the new “male” gender identities claimed by these girls, suggesting a strong belief that gender identity can actually change between childhood and adolescence.
The possibility that gender identity may be mutable raises issues, however, for claims that the treatment of choice for children (and adults) with gender dysphoria should be the treatment that has been quite cleverly named “Gender Affirming Care” (GAC). The term “Gender Affirming Care” certainly makes it SOUND like a caring and particularly humane (and perhaps even gentle) approach to treating gender dysphoria. The reality of GAC, though, is not quite as soft and gentle as the name implies. What GAC actually involves is: (1) socially transitioning a child to live as the sex that is different from the child’s biological sex, (2) treatment with powerful hormones to stop the child’s natural puberty from occurring, (3) treatment with powerful hormones to ultimately induce something like the puberty of the transitioned-to sex, (4) surgery to change the child’s body from appearing like the body of someone of the child’s biological sex (castration for biological boys, mastectomies and other procedures for biological girls), and (5) surgery to create body parts that are somewhat — but only somewhat — similar to sex-specific body parts of someone of the child’s transitioned-to sex (including creating an artificial, but not fully functional, vagina or penis). Following all of these treatments, the trans individual becomes a life-long medical patient, dependent on continued hormone treatments, while being infertile and unable to experience normal sexual orgasms. All of that describes what has been done to, and experienced by, the real Jazz Jennings.
The alternative to GAC would be to try to help children with gender dysphoria resolve their feelings of dysphoria by helping them accept who they are — or perhaps, to simply take a wait and see attitude to find out if their gender dysphoria resolves itself on its own through the passage of time and the normal process of development (and in fact, there is good evidence that most children with gender dysphoria do outgrow their gender dysphoric feelings, without the need for medical intervention, by the time they reach their later teen years).
This brings us to the major issue regarding GAC and beliefs about gender mutability. My claim is that only a monster would believe both (1) that gender identity is mutable and gender dysphoria can be ameliorated through non-medical means, and (2) that GAC should be the treatment of choice for children with gender dysphoria. What kind of person, for example, would believe that gender identity is mutable and also think that it’s OK to lop off a teen girl’s breasts when she says that she has the gender identity of a boy? Wouldn’t it be much better, and far more consistent with the principle “first do no harm”, to try to help that girl resolve her gender dysphoria without surgically removing her healthy breast tissue? What kind of person would think it’s OK to castrate a teen boy who says he thinks he’s a girl — if that person also believes that gender identity is mutable and that the boy’s gender dysphoria might therefore be resolved without medical treatment?
Not surprisingly, there is currently a lot of controversy regarding GAC. A number of states have banned the medical components of GAC with children below the age of 18, and a number of countries in Western Europe and Scandinavia have a similar ban (in some cases with an exception — as an “experimental” treatment — for use with particularly acute cases). But GAC certainly has its supporters and defenders in the U.S. — including a number of medical associations and the Biden administration (which recently decided not to impose any age minimums on the use of the medical aspects of GAC).
There is one way in which GAC defenders can reconcile their support for GAC with their ideas about gender identity mutability. Specifically — they might adopt the position that gender identity is only mutable for cisgender individuals, whereas transgender identities are not mutable. From this perspective, children like Jazz Jennings are expressing an immutable trans identity (and therefore it is appropriate to treat their gender dysphoria with medical interventions), and while ROGD girls may have had a mutable female gender identity as children, when they begin to express a trans-male identity, their new trans identity is immutable (and therefore GAC would be the treatment of choice). Admittedly, I’ve never actually read a claim exactly like this from any trans ideologues. Nonetheless, if you listen to what trans ideologues say about gender identity mutability and combine that with their support for GAC — this would seem to be the only way to reconcile the two.
The fact that this view has not been voiced explicitly may reflect the fact that — it is so obviously nutty on its face and obviously purpose-built as a way of making the use of GAC seem ethical, and perhaps also because there is good evidence that it’s not true. The best evidence that this idea is wrong comes from cases of trans individuals who have chosen to “desist” — that is, individuals who feel their gender identities have changed BACK from a trans identity to an identity consistent with their natal sex (even after undergoing the medical interventions that are part of GAC). The trans activist community has been energetic in trying to deny the reality of these cases — usually by claiming that the individual was never “truly and fully trans” to begin with. My guess is that this intense pushback against acceptance of the reality of cases of desistance is precisely because — at some level of awareness at least — there is the realization that these cases challenge, in a very fundamental way, the ethical foundation for the use of GAC with children.
Gender essentialism and gender stereotypes
My wife and I grew up in the era of emerging gay rights and the philosophy of “free to be, you and me”. The point of this philosophy is that even if MOST boys like rough and tumble play, it’s still OK for a boy to dislike that form of play, and/or for a boy to like to play with dolls and to prefer to play with girls instead of with other boys. And just because MOST girls like to play with dolls, it’s OK for a girl to prefer rough and tumble play and to prefer to play with boys rather than with other girls. Having behavioral preferences and inclinations that are atypical for those of one’s sex, according to this view, is OK – and it certainly doesn’t mean that an atypical boy is really a girl or that an atypical girl is really a boy. Similarly, even though most teen and adult males have a clear preference to have sex with females, according to the “free to be” philosophy, it’s OK if a male wants to have sex with other males, just as it’s OK for a teen or adult female to prefer to have sex with other females.
More generally, the essence of the “free to be” philosophy is that although there may be a lot of sex-related stereotypes that are STATISTICALLY valid (e.g., the FACT that the average male is more interested than the average female in things or objects whereas the average female is more interested than the average male in people and social interactions), the “free to be” philosophy posits that there is nothing wrong with a male having male-atypical interests and/or behavior patterns or a female having female-atypical interests and/or behavior patterns. That’s just how some males and some females are, and it does not mean that they are not “really” male or female.
This is very different from the trans ideology perspective, which posits that if a child with a penis (like Jazz Jennings as a child) likes to play with dolls and wants to wear what is typically thought of as girls’ clothes, that child is probably really a girl (who just happens to have been born in the “wrong” body). Trans ideology is thus grounded on strongly ESSENTIALIST beliefs about gender stereotypes – what I certainly consider to be the regressive view that to be a real male (or female), one must behave like a typical male (or female).
It is that same feature of trans ideology that makes it deeply homophobic. Whereas the “free to be” philosophy is fully compatible with the reality of males who prefer to have sex with other males and females who prefer sex with other females, trans ideology posits that effeminate boys (who are likely to develop into being gay men) are really girls, and masculine girls (who are likely to develop into lesbian women) are really boys — thereby erasing the L and G in LGBT. It’s for this reason that some of the strongest opposition to trans ideology has come from members of the male and female homosexual community – including popular homosexual substackers like Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Doyle, and Julie Bindel — all of whom have been sounding the alarm about trans ideology’s essentialist views of gender and erasure of homosexuality.
The case of American soon-to-be Olympian Nikki Hiltz nicely illustrates the distinction between the “free to be” perspective and trans ideology. Hiltz is a middle distance runner who very recently won the women’s 1500 meter event at the American Olympic trials – in record setting time. One reason Hiltz has received a lot of attention is because Hiltz does not claim to be a woman. Hiltz was born with female anatomy and has always competed in female sports, went through female puberty, and has not taken male hormones or undergone surgery to remove any sex-related anatomical parts. However, Hiltz claims to be “transgender non-binary” rather than being a woman.
Of course, it is fully legitimate for Hiltz to compete in the women’s category at the Olympic trials, and I really don’t care what Hiltz calls herself. And because she is an adult, if at some point Hiltz wants her breasts removed, that’s her business, not mine. But from a “free to be” perspective on gender, Hiltz is a woman who happens to be a fantastic runner, much more masculine than the average woman, and lesbian. And from this perspective, the “much more masculine than the average woman” and the “lesbian” features of her identity do nothing to take away from the fact that she is a woman. It is only from a gender-essentialist trans ideology perspective that someone like Hiltz would be “transgender non-binary” (whatever the hell that actually means). From my perspective – and again, while granting Hiltz the full right to call herself whatever she wants – that is nuts, and it’s offensive, and a denial of reality.
The end.