Tuesday, May 28, 2024
HomeCulture WarThe transgender trap, Part 2

The transgender trap, Part 2


This is the second part of a two-part essay prompted by the resignation of philosophy professor Dr Kathleen Stock, who was hounded out of Sussex University for saying people cannot change their biological sex. Part One was published yesterday. 

YESTERDAY I discussed how lobby groups, whose programmes of ideological training are funded and disseminated by our government, are able to groom and recruit the youngest and most vulnerable children, and co-opt their families in order to support their cause. The reward for participating will be a solution to the family’s problems, social approval from those with the authority to dispense it and the hope of social support.

For children who have grown up with trauma, conflict and abuse and without the ingredients of love, stability and attention to facilitate their development, the transgender lobby will help them with questions of identity and promise attention in spades.

But to understand the growth of gender dysphoria we need to look beyond children, the families and the trans lobby. We need to ask why mental health problems have taken this particular form.

Stephanie Davies-Arai, whose concern about the trend to diagnose gender variant children led her to found the organisation Transgender Trend in 2015, goes some way to answering these questions when she talks about gender stereotypes. We live in a world where male and female have been reduced to the most appalling caricatures, marketed through toy manufacturers and painted pink and blue.

These lead some parents and children into thinking there is something wrong with them if them if they don’t conform to a narrow and stereotypical definition of gender. By focusing on superficial characteristics, stereotypes turn male and female into costumes which can be cast off or donned.

But stereotypes are only symptoms of a cultural disease which has much deeper roots – the erosion of sex difference.

Sex differences emerge out of the fact that women give birth and men don’t. This lies at the heart of everything which makes us women and men.

The foundation was laid with readily available contraception and abortion. Control over fertility obscured the depths of our different physicality. This made it possible for gender, the belief that sex differences were socially constructed, to take root.

The idea began with the notorious John Money and his heinous experiments on children then popularised by feminists.

By the 1980s ‘gender’ had become widely popularised. Male and female were socially constructed and gender was the only sex difference there was.

Getting rid of sex differences had been central to the feminist project. If sex differences were real, sex inequality could be explained. If sex inequalities could be explained then there was no male oppression. If there was no male oppression then there would be no need for feminism itself.

As feminists saw it, sex differences had been artificially and unnecessarily created by patriarchy out of some unfortunate, rather insignificant differences in the male and female relationship to reproduction. Feminists believed that every single sex difference could be overridden.

Females could be happy and have careers and as much money and status as men. Men could do housework and look after babies (if women allowed). The sexes should be symmetrical in all those areas which provided power and status. There should be no sex differences in earnings, in time spent on housework or in study and employment preferences.

To achieve this, the place of procreation had to be diminished and rendered an insignificant and incidental part of life.

As a result the past seventy years has seen the systematic assault on the cultural expression of biological sex differences. Girls were taught that careers were more important to them. Preparation for marriage, pregnancy and childrearing was no longer seen as necessary. Building a family was seen as peripheral.

In such an environment there has been no story about sex differences to fill the imagination. The market with its shallow stereotypes has burgeoned to fill this gap. Puberty is rendered worse than meaningless. A time of life which would have been culturally elaborated and celebrated as a key stage in the transition to adulthood it became something which children really didn’t want. ‘I don’t want to have my puberty,’ gender dysphoric children repeatedly say. This is not surprising.

Instead of celebrating fertility children are taught about contraception and abortion. Sexual pleasure has replaced family formation as a goal in life. From understanding that they could become potential mothers and fathers, girls learn that they are sex objects and boys potential abusers.

 The destruction of sex differences gave birth to the transgender men and women feminists are battling today.

If we wish to heal our young people of gender dysphoria it will not be sufficient to stop funding Stonewall, although this would of course do a great deal to help. Instead, we need to recognise our sex differences. Recognise that as men and women girls and boys we have different priorities, values and ways of doing things. We need to discover, value, encourage and even cultivate these differences. When girls recognise and value their ability to give birth they might start valuing their breasts and their bodies which many seem so keen to discard. And when boys understand that men play a crucial role in sustaining and supporting the family and society they might look forward to being men.

The feminists have played an admirable and often selfless role in battling transgender lobbying. But if they really want to protect children from this ideological agenda they need to value and cultivate our sex differences and after 70 years of denial allow these once again to take root.

All information in this article comes from:

Kozlowska, K., McClure, G., Chudleigh, C., Maguire, A.M., Gessler, D., Scher, S. and Ambler, G.R., 2021. Australian children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Clinical presentations and challenges experienced by a multidisciplinary team and gender service. Human Systems1(1), pp.70-95.

Haig, D., 2004. The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Archives of sexual behavior33(2), pp.87-96.

Kozlowska, K., McClure, G., Chudleigh, C., Maguire, A.M., Gessler, D., Scher, S. and Ambler, G.R., 2021. Australian children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Clinical presentations and challenges experienced by a multidisciplinary team and gender service. Human Systems1(1), pp.70-95.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Belinda Brown
Belinda Brown
Belinda Brown is author of 'The Private Revolution' and a number of well-cited academic papers. More recently, she has started writing and blogging for The Daily Mail and The Conservative Woman. She has a particular interest in men's issues and the damage caused by feminism.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.