Jonathan Rauch surprised me by not jumping up and down, hob-nailed boot clad, on this set of statements he quotes on American Purpose:
As Helen Joyce argues in her book Trans (2021), radical gender ideology (or gender identity ideology, as it’s also called) is a horse of a different color. It is not at all the same as trans rights. Nor is it any one thing: It’s a conceptual mess, propounding some ideas that make sense (gender is socially conditioned) but also wild claims, such as that (as Joyce writes) “depending on its owner’s identity, a penis may be a female sex organ.” I take its central claims to include these:
· Trans women are women and trans men are men, no difference, full stop;
· Human gender and sex are social constructions and are not a binary but on a continuum, so concepts like “male” and “female” are relative and subjective;
· Gender and sex are chosen identities, and an individual’s declared choice can never be doubted or challenged;
· Denying or disputing any of the above is violence.
Any useful hypothesis, as any well-trained scientist, i.e., familiar with philosopher Karl Popper’s work on the nature of hypotheses, should jump up and down upon encountering these statements, particularly the last. Popper’s work and arguments are that a hypothesis that cannot be considered scientific and useful if it cannot be falsified, which is to say proven false. For example, the hypothesis that a divine being, all-powerful, created the Universe would be unfalsifiable, at least on its face.
Rauch?
Even if you don’t agree me that the first three propositions are false and the fourth is intolerant, you might concur that they are not the only or best way to think about transgender civil rights. Rather, they are extrinsic notions that escaped from academia and attached themselves, limpet-like, in the same way that left-wing politics parasitized gay rights a generation ago.
It’s also possible to ask why such a proposition is presented in a society in a liberal democracy, as the tenets of liberal democracies include the ability to debate any political proposition. Clearly, Joyce, the author, feels so uncertain concerning her assertions that she cannot tolerate the least little critique, much less the sometimes raucous debates that lead to improvement and justice.
I’m left wondering why, in fact, they published this book at all. Books usually inspire conversation, but this one will inspire terror, in those afraid of hollow accusations, and disgust in those who value honest debate.
But this has been worth reading if only for the remark about leftist politics “parasitizing” gay rights. I’ve run across this before, just recently, including the observation that there is a considerable proportion of the gay community that votes conservative, even in the face of homophobia. It’s a vital reminder to the Democrats that conflating sexual orientation with political ideology is a minor unforced error, and the recent promotion of racial groups as being solid political ideological groups will turn out to be a major unforced error – in my view. So long as the far-right can continue the masquerade of being reasonable, Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks will consider voting conservative, especially if the more hateful and mistaken ideologies of the left come forward.
