fbpx
Salvo 11.01.2022 15 minutes

Gender Jesuits

Concept of gender equality. A hand changes an unequal sign to an equal sign between male and female symbols.

The trans religion demands that we all accept the reality of gender identity as the true faith.

Human sexual dimorphism—the predictable and consistent physical differences between males and females—is undeniable. Ironically, even trans activists acknowledge this fact when they seek to use surgery and psychotropic drugs to modify their bodies to resemble the opposite sex. That they can’t get past nature is not surprising since the categories of male and female are mutually exclusive. No matter how close a male gets to female morphology, there is an infinitely deep chasm between the two categories.

While both men and women feature a wide spectrum of every trait, at no point do these differences cross over into the other sex. Contrary to the old Nickelodeon show, there is no such thing as a cat-dog spectrum, even if they both have four legs, fur and claws, and serve as domesticated house pets. 

Believers in the trans religion claim that it is coincidence that people who have uteruses also have vaginas, breasts, and can menstruate and be impregnated. There are exceptions, such as individuals who fall into an intersexual category, better termed disorders of sexual development, whereby their sexual organs are outwardly indeterminate. Somehow, allege the believers, this demonstrates that there is no categorical difference between male and female genitalia. This is, of course, absurd. It is equivalent to saying that apples and oranges are on a bimodal spectrum, a data set made of multiple, independently varying traits that then tend to correlate, because they are approximately the same size and are both generally sweet. However, this ignores the categorical difference between apples and oranges—the lifespan and distinct origins of each fruit. 

Like all organisms that reproduce sexually, there is a necessary separation between male and female germ cells, the only two entities involved in the binary sexual reproductive process in humans. Male gametes, also known as sperm, can only fertilize female gametes, also known as eggs. No gender theist has yet been able to demonstrate the existence of a gamete spectrum.

By contrast, organisms that reproduce asexually, such as bacteria, do not need another individual in order to reproduce. While this can lead to more rapid reproduction of individuals, problematic genes will be propagated without opposition from healthier copies of those genes. The closer humans get to asexual reproduction—e.g., through incest—the more genetic disorders concentrate in the incestuous population.

If male and female gametes were a bimodal spectrum, logically this would recategorize humans as asexually reproducing organisms. It challenges the very concept of sexual reproduction. Yet even trans activists acknowledge that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other, which ought to be a direct challenge to the idea that human gametes are not categorically different. It also requires acknowledgement that gametes that cannot fertilize are in fact predictable in individuals based on secondary sex characteristics. Somehow, we can predict someone’s genital configuration in advance of seeing it. Somehow, we can know that a particular configuration produces a particular gamete. Somehow, we can know which gamete pairings will produce an embryo. And somehow, all cultures through all time have been able to tell the difference between men and women.

Trans activist pseudoscientists overlook such claims because their religion is founded on the doctrine that “trans women are women.” Ironically, “trans women are women” logically means that “gender is sex.” Yet trans activists will also assert, when it is convenient, that gender is NOT sex.

Meanwhile, the gender pseudoscientists have made many claims about the differences between male and female brains and trans and cis brains. They allege that, unlike reproductive systems, male and female brains are binary and categorical. Of course, how we determine the differences between male brains and female brains, given that sex isn’t real and genitalia is a bimodal spectrum of independent variables, is never explained. 

We start from the premise that the same diversity of neurotypes—two, it would seem—exists in both sexes. From there, we somehow conclude that some brains are in the wrong bodies. But this is an ideological projection onto the dataset. The data in fact show that sex does not predict brain type, a claim which feminists have been making for about a century or so. I part ways with many feminists in arguing that there is such a thing as a female brain, as determined by existing in a female body with female genetics. There is profound functional and structural convergence between the male and female brains, naturally, but consider sex-based differences in pancreatic function, or the presence or absence of testosterone, as well as the presence of a Y chromosome, which is known to act on certain brain areas, including the basal ganglia. Males need testosterone for optimal pancreatic function, whereas testosterone impairs the female pancreas, even though the form and function of the human pancreas is otherwise essentially identical in males and females. Males evolved to be males, in other words; they are sexually dimorphic from females throughout the lifespan.

But gender Jesuit pseudoscientists, much like phrenologists, start from the premise that “trans” and “cis” people are meaningfully distinct groups and then work backwards, attempting to find differences in large datasets that are segregated by self-reports. These differences are then held up as proof that being trans or cis is immutable. Small, sexually dimorphic areas in the brain are seen as proof of a categorical difference between cis and trans, but the categorical difference of male and female is denied. But the fact that certain areas of the brain are masculinized or feminized does not mean that all the features will tilt towards either the feminized or masculinized areas. This is akin to saying that because atoms are mostly empty space, a person can walk through a wall. We all know that the likelihood is incomprehensibly small. Brains are no different.

I have referred to so-called gender affirmation surgeries as sex lobotomies. The reason is that a sex organ lobotomy is not the only treatment option. An actual neurological lobotomy is a clear avenue for treatment that so far has not been pursued. We can perform brain surgeries that could be fairly called microlobotomies, intended to destroy areas of the brain that are causing seizure activity that threatens the life and cognitive function of an individual. Using electrodes during the actual surgery, a neurosurgeon is able to identify which area of the brain is malfunctioning by asking the individual varying questions to see when certain capacities, like speech, are lost. 

Putting this all together, it becomes clear that if we can identify which areas of the brain are problematically the wrong sex, there is no reason why a surgeon couldn’t treat this by cauterizing problem areas identified on a MRI. So far, no trans activist has wanted to explain why this treatment should not be an option. Surely, it has at least as much clinical justification as an elective and cosmetic vaginectomy. 

The fact is, we cannot determine cis or trans status via MRI, so the gender doctors do not even bother trying to. Further, increasing numbers of detransitioners—individuals who have left the church of transanity—are speaking out against these barbaric practices. I care deeply about people with gender dysphoria who opt for surgical mutilation as a cure for their mental suffering, and I even considered it for a time for myself. Until these brain scans can both identify trans people and predict future detransitioners who were misdiagnosed, it should be considered pseudoscience. 

Moreover, even if it could be identified, there is no ethical way to generate the data needed to demonstrate that these interventions are any more effective than an equally elaborate placebo treatment. The only way to demonstrate causation is with a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, ideally with double-blinding. With a double mastectomy, of course, it is impossible to blind the individual or the surgeon as to whether the intervention was real or a placebo. That is already one reason why the alleged efficacy of these procedures should be questioned. 

Also, there is no reasonable justification for believing that this intervention has a likelihood of working. And yet, it is somehow the standard of care. The only reasons it was pursued appears to be that 1) patients wanted it, 2) placebo treatments help, and 3) medical professionals are prone to foolishness, especially during a time of moral panic at the impending wave of teen suicides and mass hysteria that boys can be girls despite being boys.

We are in a catch-22 because, similar to icepick frontal lobotomies, “sex reassignment” is an avenue of treatment that never should have been pursued in the first place. The only way we will progress is either through legislative, judicial, or other regulatory intervention. Clearly the medical profession is failing to self-regulate. Given their obvious profit motive, along with the tendency among surgeons to relish having fresh meat to perfect their technique upon, there is a very clear conflict-of-interest that could be motivating their failure to prevent the medical abuse of minors and severely mentally ill individuals. Patients are being denied informed consent, as the Planned Parenthood paperwork, for instance, fails to mention that testosterone is a known, complete carcinogen in the “risks” section. In addition, we can push back via patient and physician education regarding short and long-term harms, revealing the pseudoscience and the fact that gender-affirming treatment with only one option is not informed consent.

The American Mind presents a range of perspectives. Views are writers’ own and do not necessarily represent those of The Claremont Institute.

Suggested reading from the editors

to the newsletter