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 80 percent 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 why is it morally acceptable 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?
Have a little hope on me, Roger
Comments