When the progressive with whom you’re debating the reality or otherwise of transgender ideology introduces a remark with Au contraire, mon frere or some such foreign phrase, you may as well call time. Such rhetorical tics betray the superciliousness that true believers display when they find themselves backed into a corner but prefer not to come right out and call you transphobic.
The idea, of course, is to send that message indirectly by affecting an air of world-weary sophistication: Ah, but one grows so tired of disputing the facts of life with such primitives! One knows that they’re superstitious bigots, and it is sometimes difficult to maintain one’s composure when dealing with them… Sure, because what other reason can there be for a refusal to accept the orthodoxies of gender ideology? Who but a knuckle-dragging bigot would deny the proposition that Dylan Mulvaney is a genuine woman?
Now I doubt that very many people believe Mulvaney to be a woman. But that, after all, is why we have ideologies. They exist mainly to invest dubious propositions and outright fantasies with a spurious air of legitimacy, thus making it easier to feign belief. The impenetrable jargon of the social sciences comes in handy in that regard: Nobody obfuscates better than a tenured professor with a Ph.D. in gender studies.
But a straight look at the ideology of gender reveals that it’s nonsense, twaddle, a cult, a craze. A man may sincerely believe himself to be a woman—but no matter how sincere his belief, biology and genetics beg to differ. One’s “gender” is not assigned at birth but at the moment of conception. Gender ideologues who insist that “the science” proves otherwise never specify which branches of science support their claims. The American Academy of Pediatrics may claim that there are such creatures as girls in boys’ bodies and boys in girls’ bodies—but so far, the AAP hasn’t come up with a test for trans. Never mind, though—bring on the puberty blockers and chest binders!
Gender ideology did not, of course, develop in isolation. The radical relativism that permeates postmodern progressivism, the claim that humanity is the measure of all things, that every value is socially constructed, that what people believe of themselves creates new realities, was the essential catalyst that infused gender with its present, sinister, significance.
Wikipedia supplies an extensive list of gender identities and their definitions that well illustrates the Orwellian character of gender ideology. One can be gendervague, gender queer or simply genderless. One can be bigender, trigender or pangender. One can be a demi-man or a demi-woman. A perusal of the definitions of these terms reveals that in many cases, three or four of them are much the same thing, differently labeled. Genderflux, for instance, is defined as “having a gender identity which fluctuates.” Farther down the list, pangender is defined as “people with multiple gender identities.” The difference between the two seems less than obvious.
Taken one at a time, these gender terms may seem harmless enough. Viewed in bulk, however, they betray an understanding of human nature at once comical and unsettling. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they refute the very concept of human nature, embodying as they do the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable.
It may well be asked why anyone should care how people identify themselves. If this business of gender involved no more than individual choices, that would be a good question. But now that a lifestyle choice has evolved into an ideology, we should all care very much. For ideologies are both demanding and destructive.
In the case of gender ideology, the demand is that we must all profess belief in an obvious falsehood: that trans men and trans women are actual men and actual women. We’re supposed to signal our belief by using so-called correct pronouns and purging our minds of the memory that Roberta used to be Bob—lest we commit the heinous sin of “deadnaming.” The destruction comes in when gender ideology demands child sacrifice via “transitioning.”
These truths may as well be plainly stated, for as trans activists have made clear, they require total compliance with their demands. Using “correct pronouns” while arguing against the transitioning of children will not do. If you advocate watchful waiting, question the use of puberty blockers on preteens, or defend women-only spaces like rape shelters, you’ll be called transphobic and be accused of having blood on your hands. These people don’t want respect—they want submission.
As the insanity of trans ideology swells to its grotesque climax, more and more people are losing patience with its demands. That includes me. Going forward, to Au contraire, mon frere, my reply will be, Was für ein Müll.