Transgenderism

Transgenderism

 It might be one of the most controversial essays I'll ever pen; nonetheless, I feel obliged to voice my own opinions thereupon. It is extremely arduous to put up with the brazenly loosening morality of the contemporary world for me and I am not even a religious person, who would be putting forward right away accusations of sacrilege and immorality against whoever pleads for 'the New World Order' with a rainbow banner. In these circumstances, I cannot even imagine an Evangelist or a Muslim's anguish. By the way, there is, to my own individual and faulty judgment, the probability that religions have engendered this backlash with their indomitable insistence on an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. It is purely my own perception and it might be wrong. Notwithstanding its unreliable foundation which is my own judgment, I consider this correlation to be empirically observable and provable when investigated on a sociological and historical scale as well as on a scientific one because this proclivity of peaceful marches to escalate into violent protests including scrimmages and altercations is almost non-existent in the Far East where religion doesn't have a prevalent monopoly over sexuality. In religions such as Buddhism or Shintoism, the pedestal of morality lies not in sexuality but in harmony with the society you live in and the respected hierarchy between disparate members within. Putting aside this ill-founded theory of mine, I would like to plunge into the heart of this conflictive topic now.

 As you, too know, transgenderism has unnecessarily been in the heart of the Woke communities for the last decades. Unfortunately, we observe today a polarised society torn between the so-called 'progressives' and the conservatives. Perhaps, the most saddening aspect of this contentious breakup is that these self-proclaimed progressives strive to wade across an ocean with a raft and a thick piece of twig as a paddle, so to say. What I mean by these words is that the topic of transgenderism is beyond popular buzzwords that develop into slogans. In general, pro-LGBTQ+ people support the grave misconception that gender and sex are completely separate notions one from another, which must be sacrilegious for medical circles. On the other hand, we have some celebrities who run counter to this tendentially expanding community such as Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, and Ben Shapiro. They basically allege that both concepts are indeed different but interdependent and inseparable. For you to grasp better why I opt for the latter's side, I find it logical to begin with a palpable delineation of the vocabulary.

 Cambridge Dictionary Online defines the word gender as a group of people in a society who share particular qualities or ways of behaving which that society associates with being male, female, or another identity. As for sex, it is defined as 'the physical state of being either male, female, or intersex.' Lastly, we have sexual orientation which is defined as the fact of someone being sexually or romantically attracted to people of a particular gender, or more than a gender. 

 For these definitions, I cannot say the opposite in fact; I completely concur with this statement, but I, contrary to popular belief, claim that there are only two sexes, whereas there might be in a person ambivalent conducts with regards to their sex and gender. In my opinion, there isn't a problem with sexual orientation. Everyone has the right to love whom he or she wants. As for sex, any other sexual identity than male or female is a medical anomaly for me, and I do not have a problem with orientations or sexes. My disturbance is caused by the enormous and still increasing number of strange genders. If I were asked, I would hypothesise that these bizarre genders have been introduced by young generations alongside those we already know and associate with biological sexes. Ironically, pro-LGBTQ+ communities endorse the 'dogma' that gender and sex are two separate notions while they lay claim to the right of transition when gender and sex contradict each other. If someone totally belongs to a certain gender in spite of having the genitalia of the sex associated with another gender just because that person feels so, then it is implicitly implied that a person can identify as whatever gender he/she wishes for irrespectively of the biological state of the body. This idea consequently leads us to notice the stupidity of transition. By way of retort, some LGBTQ+ supporters might say that people should undergo such surgeries in order to fully enjoy their gender. What would be contradictory about this attitude is that these groups already came into existence with the goal of highlighting the beauty of diversity without boundaries, and I reckon that being a gender-A person with a sex-B body would certainly stand out as the great epitome of diversity. Beyond this issue, supposing that we have dealt with this problem, arises another question: if we are in the obligation of surgically intervening for gender affirmation and it is ethical, then why isn't doing things the other way around not so? If I am to convert a person to another gender, why shouldn't I help the concerned person remain within his or her original gender and feel compatible?

 When it comes to sex and transition, there are two different main categories and one cannot fully transition to the other no matter what therapies and surgeries he or she undergoes. The argument for my last statement is quite simple and lies in the definition of male and female. A male person is an individual who has XY chromosomes throughout his body, while a female person is the one who has XX chromosomes. Since these chromosomes are present in each one of your cells and you cannot alter their structure, you cannot change your sex completely. Although, it doesn't signify that a person is not capable of manifesting behaviours opposed to their sexual nature. They surely can, and it should not be a problem per se. A person with XX chromosomes and female genitalia might behave like a man would and this topic falls within the range of individual liberties.

 Divergent sexual tendencies have existed since the dawn of humanity. There were coins specifically minted for prostitution in Roman times and there was a branch of literature called 'Sodomite Literature' in the Ottoman Empire. Sexual experience, to my mind, is an intimate moment that you should not unveil to others' knowledge. As long as it is kept between the couple, or amongst the group of participants in other cases, this doesn't imply a reproachable course of action to be frowned upon. To clarify once and for all, my problem is with the unbridled popularisation and the constant exposure we forcibly suffer from. One of these dishonest means of popularisation is the indoctrination of prepubescent children about transgenderism. A child does not possess the necessary abilities to reason properly and their judgment is malleable. This shouldn't be abused for the inculcation of a pro-LGBTQ+ agenda. Every person over 18 years old should be educated about other sexual identities for me too. This is without a doubt. Nevertheless, early sexual education and the reduction in the age of transition that the crushing majority of LGBTQ+ groups claim is no less than blasphemy vis-à-vis mankind. A person who has not yet attained sexual maturity should neither be authorised for transition nor receive education about it. For the sake of precision, my limit is not fixed at 18 years old. In countries where the age of consent is set at a different age such as Belgium or Switzerland(16 years old), every other possible course of action that directly or tangentially touches upon the individual's sexuality should be set at that age and restricted for those under that age threshold.

 A counterargument against my own words will certainly be that children who are supposedly trapped in the wrong body face serious discrimination and bullying at school. Suicidal thoughts and the rate of the 'successful' execution of these thoughts spike. I can confidently adduce the high rates of suicide in transitioned people against this; however, this fact is generally twisted and is purported to be due the social marginalisation and ostracism. I indeed cannot exclude this factor but many things become conducive to this dreary outcome as soon as a person transitions. According to a medical article written by Daniel Jackson, the prevalence of suicidality is merely the optimistic façade because transgender people tend to suffer more from chronic health conditions than their cisgender peers. By the way, a cisgender, for those who don't know, refers to a person who identifies as the gender biologically congruent with his or her body, chromosomes, and genitalia such as a man feeling like a man. Apart from health risks and marginalisation, an incongruence between body and mind regarding sexual identity is not always a desperate situation that can only be brought to a definitive end through a gender-affirming surgery. This condition occurs under the influence of diverse factors that englobe extrinsic and intrinsic causes. In case it is because of a hormonal imbalance, then a simple hormonal treatment should suffice to correct this trouble. We can envision a transition only in case it is determined to have occurred for reasons beyond our understanding with the medical knowledge, that positive sciences have bestowed us with, and, therefore, we cannot understand. Otherwise, this procedure is nothing but the ruination of a human being's life.

 Another flaw in the defence of transgenderism would certainly be the arbitrariness and cursoriness of their assertions which are basically immaterial averments. A dreary quote circulates around by word of mouth: 'if a man identifies as a woman and feels so, he is a woman.' In order to demonstrate how misleading and even mendacious this statement is, we should understand biology. It doesn't matter what you feel like or what sexual identity you consider yourself to be, you have either male or female genitalia. If not, then it is not a diversity but a medical anomaly. If you have both genitalia, meaning that you have a penis while having a womb inside your body or something else, you are not biologically normal and you should be treated to prevent further troubles and complications. Because mammalian biology plainly categorised us into two groups and didn't grant us an evolutive ability to transition from one side to the other. I clarify that there are a myriad of species such as clownfish and slugs that can transition but none of them are mammals, which explains why I opted for the word 'mammalian' at the beginning of my phrase. It is not normal for a mammal to feel an incompatibility between its sexuality and its body. In definitive, transgenderism is an unnecessary and sometimes nefarious social construct that has been introduced into our collective lexicon by way of neologism. So, I hope now that you have fathomed me and know that I do not have an issue with transgender people but with the unscientific plea behind it. 

  On the other hand, one of the most unsettling situations we nowadays have to cope with is the aforementioned constant exposure to the peremptory normalisation of this anomaly. The unbalanced double standard applied to transgender people has been so omnipresent that we witness them everywhere as if they were an invasive species of a rampant plant. They all but infested, albeit slyly, the media and practically all film genres, whether it be history or sci-fi. We are undesirably exposed to obscene scenes in inappropriate places, and, most of the time, the scene does not even fit into the universe of the production. It is just like hiring a black actor for the role of a British count in the 18th century in the middle of Colonialism. In short, it is absurd. To top it all, the worst part is that whenever you raise your voice against such exposures, people seethe with anger and harshly vituperate you without any scruple, reckoning that you bear animosity towards the people with the sexual identity displayed in the scene. It is shamefully fallacious because people are not bound to watch sexual scenes, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, and they are entitled to make their concerns heard. It is not homophobia, transphobia, or biphobia. People simply do not want to see superfluous obscenity while they, I reckon, wouldn't have a problem with watching one when it is absolutely a nice fit for the healthy and intelligible course of the plot in fact. At least, I claim to be in this category. Prison Break stunned and captivated us for a long time, keeping us fixed on the screen, and it didn't contain any excess of sexual scenes at all when both protagonists were homosexual men in real life. The plot could easily be warped and twisted so that Lincoln and Michael, learning that Lincoln was adopted so they are not biologically brothers, hook up. However, the scriptwriters didn't do that because they didn't feel the necessity since it was the first decade of the 2000s, and the Woke community had not yet grown enough to put people in their crosshairs and to impose on them their social norms with staggering sanction power. Therefore, I know that there wasn't a specific demand for such scenes, yet they have become commonplace, and it is what disturbs me.

 In conclusion, I admit that I do nourish ideas that could lead others to frown upon me; nonetheless, it is not of great importance to me since I am as free to utilise my reasoning as the Woke community. For me, sexual diversity will always remain a thing to be respected, albeit I will always dare to utter that some groups within the LGBTQ+ community are neither right nor healthy for society. I reiterate that I do not find right or healthy only certain groups from within or without the community, since there are perverse groups striving to integrate into this common banner, like the movement of Transgenderism which I meticulously broached above. As to groups from outside the LGBTQ+ community, there are pedophilia and many unspeakably abhorrent movements, which I will be writing about in the future. Apart from these particular groups I specifically excoriate, I totally respect gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, etc., because they do not stand against the scientific world in order to inculcate medically dangerous ideas in unknowledgeable people or innocent children and simply feel attracted to the other sex than/alongside the opposite sex. All this being said, I must summarise in a sentence and finish my essay: there are only two sexes, male and female, and questions concerning sex and the set of behaviours related to them, genders, should be handled by experts, whereas sexual orientation is a flexible notion that should be respected by all. Because everyone, regardless of their sexual identity, has the right to love, intimacy, and respect.

Thank you for reading until the end.

ATHEL