In National Geographic’s January 2017 issue “Gender Revolution”, Robin Marantz Henig authors an article titled “Rethinking Gender”.
Andrew T. Walker and Denny Burk of The Witherspoon Institute offer a response to her story stating it is a “bad argument and biased ideology”. They offer four broader philosophical problems inherent within the transgender movement.
First, there is no substantive argument, only testimonies, and testimonies are not sufficient. It is based not on evidence, but on the ideology of expressive individualism which requires no moral argument or empirical justification for its claims.
Second, the fallacy of composition is committed by linking intersex conditions with transgenderism. Intersexuality and transgenderism are apples and oranges. The physiological experience of intersexuality is in a different category from the psychological constructs of gender dysphoria and transgenderism.
Third, “Brain Sex Theory” offers hypotheses which offer no scientific consensus on what actually causes transgenderism. The categories described in the article are based on theory, not fact.
Fourth: The coverage is filled with contradictory, incoherent claims. Henig counsels, “Understand that gender identity and sexual orientation cannot be changed, but the way people identify their gender identity and sexual orientation may change over time as they discover more about themselves.” Is gender identity immutable or can people change over time? The claim that transgender identities are equally as fixed and unchanging as sexual orientation is simply not supported by any kind of scientific consensus. Fact: about of children who experience transgender feelings completely resolve their difficulties without any intervention after they reach puberty.
Why does National Geographic choose to “[celebrate] the mutilation of minor children with a full-page picture of a shirtless 17-year old girl who recently underwent a double mastectomy in order to “transition” to being a boy. Why do transgender ideologues consider it harmful to attempt to change such a child’s mind but consider it progress to display her bare, mutilated chest for a cover story? Why is it acceptable to surgically alter a child’s body to match his sense of self but bigoted to try to change his sense of self to match his body? If it is wrong to attempt to change a child’s gender identity (because it is fixed and meddling with it is harmful), then to alter something as fixed as the reproductive anatomy of a minor?”
You can also find Walt Heyer's article, A Nine Year Old Boy is Spreading a "Contagion of Mass Delusion", about National Geographic's cover photograph here.
Personally, I am witnessing more and more students in my school dealing with these issues while the truth is degenerated from under their feet. What do you think?
Don’t take my word for it, read the article, don’t wait for the movie.
Have a little hope on me, Roger