We need to recognise the fact that the language has changed over the last decade from ‘transsexual’ to ‘transgender.’ Nobody seems to have questioned the significance of this change.
‘Transsexual’ literally means a change in biological sex: it’s used to describe a small group of people who suffer extreme body dysmorphia, where the body is experienced as disgusting and wrong to the extent that a ‘sex change operation’ has been shown to be a valid way to ease suffering.
‘Transgender’ on the other hand, is a subjective term. The meaning of the word ‘gender’ is open to interpretation; some interpret it as social roles imposed on the sexes, some people think it is innate ‘natural’ characteristics of the sexes. In either case it is an abstract idea, not a biological fact. To ‘trans’ gender means going from one subjective undefined idea to the supposed ‘opposite’ subjective undefined idea.
We are saying that kids are transgender, and yet we are treating them as transsexual (a term we would hesitate to apply to children). Transgender is a very convenient word to obscure what we’re really doing, which is changing children’s biological sex [*], not their gender.
Along with the change in language has been a change in the claim made that a ‘trans woman’ for example, is a real woman, was always a woman, and is no different to any other woman. Transsexuals did not (and do not) make this claim.
We have absolutely no idea what we’re doing, and yet we’re prepared to allow this very recent niche ideology to justify the butchering of healthy bodies of young people. We should all be very angry.
The pressure on schools to go along with the trans narrative will also increase if The Gender Identity Research and Education Society gets its way. GIRES has presented evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee, calling for children as young as three to be taught about transgender issues in school. The trans advocacy charity criticised the DfE for failing to include ‘atypical gender identity development’ in the curriculum.
Teaching children that it’s fine to be ‘atypical’ simply involves allowing children to play with whatever they want, encouraging all children in an expansive definition of what their sex can be, and having no tolerance for teasing or bullying of those children whose behaviour doesn’t fit the stereotypes for their sex.
What GIRES are advocating though, is giving kids the opposite message. Through books in which right-on versions of Pingu tell their friends ‘We’ll tell them you are Sally and were never really John!’ they want children to be taught that if you are a boy who likes what society deems to be ‘girl’ interests, then you must actually be a girl.
Schools are in a bind: teach all children that a little boy can be a little girl and grow up to be an adult woman, and little girls can grow up to become adult men, or be seen as transphobic. If we do teach children that these things are possible, we also have to re-write the whole biology curriculum – perhaps we could call it Biological Creationism.
The theory that children have an innate ‘gender identity’ which does not match their biological sex has no scientific basis; it is impossible to have a brain which is the opposite sex of the body. The idea that male and female brains are significantly different has long been discredited. There is no existence of a pathophysiology to support treatment: to have preferences typically associated with people of the opposite sex is not a pathology, and there is nothing medically wrong with the body.
To even make the claim that a child is biologically male but ‘is a girl inside’ requires a definition of the term ‘girl’ as a recognised category with a set of definable characteristics. The definition we have is the biological classification ‘young female.’ Beyond that, we are in the realm of subjective judgment and stereotype. If ‘girl’ is a self-definition, an identity or a feeling, then the word means potentially anything and therefore nothing.
Children in any case have no fixed innate ‘identity;’ children’s identities are in process of being built through interaction with environmental influences, without which no identity can develop. ‘Social transition’ then is nothing short of indoctrination into a trans identity.
There is also no evidence that a child’s non-conforming behaviour is in itself problematic for the child, or whether any experienced distress is caused by secondary factors such as the judgements of adults, imposed restrictions of expression or teasing and bullying from peers.
We are nevertheless advised by self-appointed gender specialists to try to fix something non-pathological in the head by medically treating the healthy physical body; making this the only situation in which medical intervention does not cure a sick body, but healthy organs are mutilated in order to match a psychological identity.
The facts, verified by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, are that most children with ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ will grow out of it by adolescence, and of those who don’t, the overwhelming majority will be gay or lesbian. Given this fact, we should be wary that the ‘transing’ of children is effectively just another form of gay conversion therapy.