hello, it’s me. it’s funny how if you google my name, you won’t learn much about what i believe or think. i have always been ok with this, because this discussion about “gender identity” isn’t about me. it isn’t about you, either. it’s about us, and how we live together in the world. i have mostly tried to stay out of conversation of “gender identity,” but i am a very direct person, so i have gotten dragged back in over the years. i am ok with this too.
sometimes the conversation about “gender identity” is about me, though. or, rather, it’s about what might be happening in my life or the lives of my family. and when you have children, inevitably, this conversation becomes personalized, because so much of what’s happened over the last two decades is lgbt activists working to develop curriculum to teach our kids their ideas about gender identity. you might have noticed, we are now in the backlash to this effort.
i pride myself on being a mom. it’s not something i have ever really talked about publicly, because i want to keep the fringe lunatics associated with this discussion far away from my family. that’s not to say they haven’t been dragged into it, either. i remember years ago when a man named dana lane taylor, who has since “retransitioned” to become david again, directly threatened by kids, saying they don’t deserve to live because they have “demon genes.” but during all of this, i have been a mom, for two decades.
and within the last two years, the conversation about “gender identity” came up, in school, when one of my kids came home to talk to me about the “gender unicorn” and “genderbread person.”
“this is stupid,” they said.
i laughed and said, “you’re not wrong.”
and i thought on it, and i thought, “let me share my concerns with the school.”
i was met with hostility, of course. i talked to the health teacher, who was defensive that someone wouldn’t automatically just accept this stuff as truth. i spoke with others in administration. i spoke with the director of diversity and inclusion.
“we’ll get back to you,” they said.
this was a year ago now.
i am going to paste below what i said to them, in case it is helpful. i did not make an impact on their curriculum, but i am heartened by the words my child said to me.
“this is stupid.”
ask your kids about this stuff. they probably think it’s stupid too.
The “gender unicorn” has five categories that appear to have ranges. It is important to note that this graphic represents a political view, not a scientific one. No one has seriously argued that sex is not dimorphic; indeed, the existence of people with Disorders of Sexual Development (“DSD”), otherwise called “intersex” people, confirms the variation on the theme: generally speaking, humans are born XX or XY.[1]
I will discuss my objections to each category in turn:
Gender identity: The graphic lacks any meaning for what “gender identity” means, but instead has three paths: Female/Woman/Girl; Male/Man/Boy; and Other Gender(s). Gender is not defined. What is the definition used in class regarding what “gender” is, let alone “gender identity”? The second-wave feminist definition of gender differs greatly from the third-wave feminist definition of gender; it is clear that this graphic represents the third-wave definition of “gender” given the origin of the graphic.
Trans Student Educational Resources (“TSER”)[2] does not define “gender.”[3] It defines “gender identity” as:
one’s internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or other gender(s). Everyone has a gender identity, including you. For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity are not necessarily the same.
Unfortunately, you cannot understand what “gender identity” means unless you understand “gender.” From a second-wave feminist perspective, “gender” is not an internal idea. Rather “gender” is used to describe those things in our culture that are stereotypically associated with a female or a male (sexes). This is a political assertion that runs counter to the third-wave political assertion of what is meant by “gender.” This labeling of “gender” – as a mechanism of women’s oppression – was an important revelation of the second wave of feminism, because it enables women to see themselves as people. I am unclear what the third-wave feminist definition of gender is from the graphic. Further, it is a political assertion to say that one has an “internal sense of being male, female” etc. There is literally no scientific basis for this assertion that I am aware of.
Gender Expression: This graphic does not definite “gender expression,” but again presents thee paths: feminine, masculine, and other. You can only understand what “gender expression” means by reviewing the TSER website:
The physical manifestation of one’s gender identity through clothing, hairstyle, voice, body shape, etc. (typically referred to as masculine or feminine). Many transgender people seek to make their gender expression (how they look) match their gender identity (who they are), rather than their sex assigned at birth. Someone with a gender nonconforming gender expression may or may not be transgender.
Again, people make fashion choices that have little to do with one’s internal sense of self. One might label this category “fashion” or “personality.”
Sex Assigned at Birth: Describing sex as “assigned” is a political phrasing, not a scientific one. Sex is generally observed at birth, not assigned. If there is some DSD that is observable at birth, it is diagnosed at birth, but many DSD’s are not observed at birth and do not become observable until puberty, such as androgen insensitivity. The TSER website offers the following definition:
The assignment and classification of people as male, female, intersex, or another sex assigned at birth often based on physical anatomy at birth and/or karyotyping.
I do not suspect that karyotyping is commonly conducted at most births; it is only used if medical professionals have some additional concerns raised by observation. However, I could not find a data point on this. The TSER also provided no data on this.
Physically Attracted to: This phrase is not defined on the TSER website. The paths put forth for attractions are women, men, and other gender(s). Again, this phrasing suggests a political choice, and seems related to “sexual orientation,” which is defined on the TSER website as:
A person’s physical, romantic, emotional, aesthetic, and/or other form of attraction to others. In Western cultures, gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same. Trans people can be straight, bisexual, lesbian, gay, asexual, pansexual, queer, etc. just like anyone else. For example, a trans woman who is exclusively attracted to other women would often identify as lesbian.
What is missing from this list? Sexual attraction. Why is that distinction necessary? Because gay men and lesbians are attracted sexually to the same sex, not the same gender, just as straight people are attracted sexually to the opposite sex. This obfuscation of the basis for sexual orientation is homophobic.
Emotionally Attracted to: This is not defined on the TSER website at all, but seems mostly as a device to discuss people who identify as “aromatic,” “asexual,” “demisexual,” etc. Again, these are cultural discussions, not scientific ones.
This graphic has similar phrasings as the “gender unicorn,” but has a few differences. In this graphic, “emotionally attracted to” is described as “romantically attracted to,” while “physically attracted to” is described as “sexually attracted to.” This graphic also uses the term “biological sex” and allows for “femaleness” and “maleness,” which is, again, a political view, not a scientific one. Most importantly with this graphic, “gender identity” is located in the brain of the genderbread person. This is garbage. “Gender identity” is not located in the brain because “gender identity” is only understood with reference to what it means, culturally, to be a man (masculine) or a woman (feminine).
[1] S. Feldman Witchel, “Disorders of Sex Development” Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018 Apr; 48: 90–102. available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/.
[2] This organization was founded by two 16 year old “transgender women” to create “safer schools through youth-led action.” Again, this is a political perspective. Who decided that this was the political perspective to be advanced in a wellness class?
It is appalling how this ideology/mythology has been incorporated into schools, particularly, without public discussion or agreement.
Schools, medical organisations, community groups, sports administrators, etc are all trying to emotionally confuse so they can manipulate children. Children are the aim. Create a fundamental disconnect between their true raw emotions and what they are taught as 'truth', and you have the beginnings of a lifelong dependency.
Sinister intentions start with teaching the lies to impressionable children.