In a world where science and ideology are increasingly intertwined, the normalization of people who identify themselves in contradiction to fact-based, biological evidence is growing rapidly. While few conservatives care to interfere in the decisions or lifestyles of others, attitudes may change when the desires of the few seem to overrule the needs of the many.
Recently, The New York Times claimed that transgender people could be “defined out of existence” by the Trump administration, due to a government return to the classical definition of biologically-based gender. Strangely enough, no leftist made any fuss, however, when the Obama administration defined biological gender out of existence in federal Title IX law, an act which violated the identity of 99.9% of the population. Why is something that is allegedly awful and inhumane to do to a tiny fraction of people suddenly acceptable when it is done to almost everyone?
Defining regular folks out of existence and enslaving them ideologically to the needs of a tiny minority has real consequences for most people. For example, in Anchorage, Alaska, the Hope Center homeless women’s shelter is pressured to accept transgender women in violation of its Christian faith. The center has sued the city in order to practice its religion, in response to alleged harassment from the local administration. Are Christian women being “defined out of existence”?
In Los Angeles, a biological male who identifies as a woman was allowed to enter a cycling world championship for female athletes, and ended up winning a world title, thereby “defining out of existence” the unique biological characteristics of women. If allowed to set a precedent, biological women no longer need to enter sports, because men who identify as women possess biological advantages that will ensure constant victory over biologically female competitors.
When leftists lost the argument for socialism as a tool to bring wealth to the masses, they abandoned the masses rather than the socialism.
Didn’t the left once rail against minority rule, and advocate for the rights and concerns of the multitudes? True, but that was before capitalism lifted workers out of poverty. When leftists lost the argument for socialism as a tool to bring wealth to the masses, they abandoned the masses rather than the socialism.
To understand the kind of world that the left is trying to create, let us use some examples to which they should be sympathetic. Today, there exists a group of people who are defined by the medical profession in much the same way as the transgendered were identified only a few years ago, namely, as mentally ill. The kind of illness they suffer from is a form of body dysphoria or body dysmorphic disorder, analogous to what was previously called gender dysphoria. Dysphorias can vary in type; many victims see themselves as ugly, while there are people who, in various forms, label themselves as disabled in some way – some self-identify as blind, others as paraplegic, and so on.
Now consider the dilemma: In malls and public spaces, special adaptations are made for the disabled, such as specific parking spaces. How would you react if someone who self-identifies as paraplegic insisted on being defined as physically handicapped and therefore had the right to use disabled parking spaces? If you have a typical moral sense, you would find it reprehensible. The whole purpose of the designated parking space is to help people who suffer from a real physical problem, not an imagined one.
Furthermore, consider now how you would react if a slew of professors said that paraplegia does not exist, but is a social construct, and anyone who self-identifies in such a way should be allowed to use the disabled parking space. At this point, you might be morally outraged, because a group of self-righteous academics would have just “defined out of existence” a real biological phenomenon, with real-world consequences. i.e., not being able to shop anymore because a suitable parking space is always occupied by an able-bodied person who self-identifies as disabled.
Leftists would have no problem understanding this example because in this case, the victim is a small minority. The question they need to answer is why prejudice suddenly transmogrifies into a moral virtue when the number of people negatively affected is so greatly multiplied that it affects a majority.