In his Poverty of Philosophy, Karl Marx attacked eternal truths and natural law as nothing more than constructs of the bourgeoisie to repress the working class. This has powered the campaign of his intellectual progeny to take everything that is natural and paint it as a “social construct” that fuels the engine of repression. The most recent, and perhaps the most pernicious example of this is gender. By labeling it as a social construct, all natural differences between the sexes, including complementarity, explained away as effects of changing social conditions. All that needs to be done is to construct the right social conditions and equality and androgyny will usher in a sexual utopia.
WHO Should We Listen To?
In combating the social contagion of transgenderism, we must first irradicate the mind virus that leads to it. Ironically, this global mind virus has spread even into the World Health Organization who defines gender as a social construct in this way:
Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities…Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs… Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
Notice first the circular nature of the experts’ definition. They say it “interacts” with sex but is different than sex. Its definition is teaming with sexual terms—“women, men, girls, and boys” Those terms are only meaningful in relation to each other. A women is a human being whose body is ordered towards the gestation of new life while a man is human being whose body is ordered towards the gestation of new life in another. Girls and boys are merely immature versions of those two. No amount of verbal gymnastics of degrading a woman by reducing her to her function as a “birthing person” will change this inherent sexual relationality. The fact that WHO advocates for transition “treatment” modalities such as hormones and surgery which make the person “look” more like the opposite sex also betrays the fact gender and sex are inseparable. Is it really a social construct that men have beards and women have breasts? If it is not, then why would it be necessary for a woman to “transition” to a man physically? If gender and sex can be different, then why all the effort to match them up? If gender identity is “person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender”, then why is it necessary to touch the external at all?
Why We Shouldn’t Give Them a Hearing
Once we grasp that the purpose of labeling gender a social construct is to apply the magical Marxian dialectic to it, then we are more apt to defend it in a way that combats this directly. We need to actively reaffirm what is natural. First there is the fact that we are social creatures which means that society, rather than being a vehicle of oppression is a necessary element of our fulfillment. Boys and girls are first formed in masculinity and femininity (and their interaction with each other) in the social setting of the family. They learn how they have a unique capacity for self-giving based on their sex and they enter into society as a whole and form families of their own in order to fulfill this capacity. A further element that must be combated is the overt dualism that animates most people’s thinking. Because we are a body/soul composite, the inner experience can never be divorced from the outer reality. Any attempt to do so ultimately leads to a disintegration of the person which manifests itself externally in the mutilation of the body. Hylomorphism means that essentially everything we consciously experience has its foundation in material reality We might imagine something like a unicorn, but that image must come from our experience in the real world of either a picture we have seen of a unicorn (from someone else’s imagination) or a mixture of our own images of a white horse with a horn. Likewise we might imagine what it was like to be Louis XVI, but could never fully imagine what he felt like when he was about to be guillotined. It is simply outside of our experience. The philosopher Thomas Nagel has an essay entitled What Is It Like to be a Bat? in which he gives a deeper explanation of this limitation of consciousness in relation to the “inner” experience of other beings.
The point is that a man feeling like a woman is by definition outside of his range of experience. He only has experience of being a man who feels like a woman (which is by definition still a man). He may know what it feels like to be confused, but he is confused as a man. How can a man struggling with gender dysphoria know that what he is experiencing is “feeling like a woman”? Doesn’t someone have to be a woman to feel like a woman? How does he know that what he feels like is exactly what a man should feels like? This is why he must go to the cultural priests (psychologists) and receive their blessing that his feelings are authentic.
The fact that an expert must authenticate the experience returns us back to the fundamental truth that transgenderism is ultimately a mental construct by those who are seeking to eliminate all hierarchies by destroying nature itself. It is designed to power the latest instance of the Marxist dialectic. This is not to trivialize the experience of those who suffer from gender dysphoria but to discredit the so-called experts who are willing to sacrifice them to their ideology.