Gender Issues

Since I first became aware of gay people (I’ll use “gay” to include all LCBTQ), I have favored equal rights for them, including equal rights for gay couples.

However, I did not believe that they had a right to redefine our language.  Applying the term “marriage” to gay couples is an unnecessary affront to religious and traditional beliefs.  At the time, I acknowledged that it was simpler to allow gay couples to use the term “married” than to comb through our laws to establish equality, but I felt principle outweighed simplicity.  Not surprisingly, our legislators’ poor judgement has caused greater social unrest than was necessary.

“Follow the science” arguments erupted with the COVID pandemic.  During that pandemic, “follow the science” really meant “blindly follow orthodoxy as promulgated by our government”.  I strongly supported the government’s efforts to contain COVID, but science involves asking questions.  We needed people to question how to identify and stop COVID (such as wastewater analysis and forward v. backward tracing) and where it originated, rather than to simply toe the government line.

Gender is another area where science is being turned on its head.  We’re told that gender is “assigned” at birth, as though gynecologists choose a gender for the child rather than it being determined by X and Y chromosomes.  This is absolute anti-science hogwash!   (There are a few unfortunate babies of indeterminate or mixed gender; those people deserve special consideration not addressed here.)

We assault our language by using the term “gender-affirming” care in Orwellian fashion, to connote its 180˚ opposite.  “Gender-affirming” care is actually “gender-change” care.  “Gender-disaffirming care” or “gender-change-affirming care” would be proper terms.  If someone wants to undergo gender-change, I think that is their right if they are an adult.  For juveniles, gender-change therapy should be allowed with appropriate rules, such as the child, the child’s parents, and at least two doctors must all agree.

Professional organizations seem to be endorsing practices under pressure from LBGTQ advocates, while ignoring scientific studies regarding the disadvantages of gender-change therapy.

Puberty is a very difficult time in life.  It causes a lot of uncertainty regarding physical and emotional changes, the timing thereof and eventual gender-specific success.  During puberty, kids fear failure and not belonging.  But over the course of time, the vast majority of children who questioned their ability to succeed in their gender have matured into adults confident of their gender.

To benefit the minority who are gay, we are creating practices that encourage children to believe that they are gay.  We’ve moved from a society which restricted heterogenous kissing in movies to a society in which explicit gay behavior is de rigueur, thereby making gay behavior a socially-appealing approach.  I think we are going too far – straying from equal rights to promoting gay identification.

Reactions to  California AB 1955 may demonstrate how antagonistic both sides can be.  AB 1955 makes it illegal for school districts to require teachers to report gender expression changes without student permission.   It does NOT require teachers to maintain such confidence.  That is, teachers can share such information with parents, even though they can’t be required to share such information.

If parents are known to be violent or have exhibited hostility to gay people, it is reasonable for teachers to choose not to share the child’s behavior with the parents.  AB 1955 protects such discretion.  It also avoids teachers having to report what might be playful or ambiguous behavior or a joke.

I suspect some LGBTQ advocates would like the law to be interpreted as forbidding such communication without student permission, because students have many teachers and any one of them could unwittingly divulge such behavior to an intolerant, violent parent.  A sound policy might be for teachers who identify such behavior to discuss it with a school counselor or other designated staff person, who might then consult with other teachers to determine the breadth of the behavior and to identify any concerns about informing the parent.  I think the media should be more clear about what AB 1955 does not do.

It is worth noting that teachers who become aware of inappropriate parental reactions can report those parents to the proper authorities.

What about parents who object to gay literature in primary school libraries?  They are accused of “book banning”, another abuse of our language.  At least most such parents have not objected to such books being sold, nor to such books being in the adult section of a public library, nor to such books being made available to older students.  But rather than engage in intelligent discussion, some LGBTQ advocates call those parents “bigots” or other derogatory labels.

People who have engaged in gender change activity should be allowed to use the bathrooms of their adopted gender.  However, a mere statement of sexual preference should be insufficient, in my opinion.

We can call people “silly”, “ignorant”, “racist”, etc.  Many terms can be rude and insensitive, but they are not illegal.  I don’t think we should be required to use particular pronouns.  Why should anyone be required to identify their sexuality or to use a term such as “cis”?  Why should anyone be required to blur our language by ambiguously referring to an individual as “they” or “them”?  Referring to a trans-gender person by their previously appropriate pronoun may be a simple slip of tongue or habit that is difficult to break.  If it is pernicious, it can be used to support other evidence of intolerance toward an individual.

I generally do not support permitting transgender women to compete in female sports.  While I sympathize that they may have difficulties in life and are deserving of support, it is not appropriate to handicap other women.  If scientific measures of the sports-related gender differences develop (e.g., testosterone), transgender women could be allowed to compete based on the results of such tests.  This is parallel to banning performance-stimulating hormones.  Note: some women may have naturally occurring high levels of whatever characteristic might relate commonly to male athletes; I do not propose to exclude such females from competing in female sports.