On balance, the United States of America is a democratic country that arguably prides itself on a system of government and rule of law that seeks the protection of minority rights, one that is reformed and tested day by day by rapid social changes, some of which lack immediately obvious solutions.
One highly intractable issue is finding the general solution to the legal and societal status of the various groups of individuals encompassed under the term “queer” in our modern American society. To what degree will the law recognize and protect such individuals? More broadly, how will societal sentiments at large accept them at all? The Heritage Foundation published an article on Thursday entitled “Biology Isn’t Bigotry: Why Sex Matters in the Age of Gender Identity” to discuss the importance of biology in gender relations.
With the recent legal privileges attained by homosexual right advocates, transgender individuals appear to be next in line (among a myriad of other gender minority groups) in the effort for wider legal and social recognition, but speak from a far more difficult position. In this effort for acceptance, it is to the benefit of our understanding as a society at large, as well as those who identify as a part of the transgender community, to relinquish moralistic arguments in favor of stricter, more rigorous scientific ones. It would provide a far more impelling case, especially for the transgender community, to begin a sincere effort in search of that evidence, rather than resort to more expedient legal channels in advocating for their rights, which itself may eventually exacerbate the issue.
In my personal experience and through my observations on social media, there appears to be a misunderstanding, or rather, an aggressive confrontation, that if someone personally possesses a doubt, or hesitance of, transgender individuals then he or she is tantamount to denying that transgender person’s “basic human rights.” First of all, I personally do not deny the basic human rights of anyone, because frankly I have no idea what those “basic human rights” even are in the first place. Invoking such a moralistic argument is highly perilous. After all, it is important to consider through which lens we define a “basic human right,” given that there are no actual “universal human rights” to which all humans on this earth are objectively bound. For example, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights nobly tried to enumerate fundamental human rights, but that is not the body of authority that most transgender activists refer to. And if there even were such a text, then the discourse in this country is predominately centered around the U.S. Constitution and its various amendments, in the same way the legal effort surrounding gay rights was focused on.
But the legal channel that is working the way through the court system of this country all the way up to the Supreme Court is still an ineffective means, so to speak, because it addresses the issue from a constitutional and legalistic perspective. This does not necessarily address the other more fundamental forms of the issue. In this case, that would be clear issues of biology and psychology, among others. Additionally, as with gay rights, it has the enormous drawback of alienating certain segments of society, thereby entrenching oppositional beliefs. But a robust, definitive argument rooted in concrete scientific evidence would provide a far stronger justification in convincing fellow citizens as opposed to handing down a decision by a simple majority that dictates the social policy of over 300 million Americans.
I truly believe that any argument proposed in favor of transgender rights, inevitably, must inherently reduce to a biological one. I cannot stress enough how this particular issue is even more deeply inseparable from biology, given the very issue it seeks to clarify. And what is encouraging is that there is accumulating, but far from compelling, research about transgender identity and the enumeration of its biological and psychological bases. I think it is an encouraging step forward for the empirical sciences to inform and craft legislation.
Regrettably, I take the precaution to append to this discussion that I am not a transphobe. In part, as an aspiring biologist, I quite simply operate on the belief that direct evidence informs my views. As a believer in empirical evidence as well as a believer in precaution against “big government,” I am uncertain of the precedent that would be established and enforced under a rule of law, especially if we as a society examine issues so inextricably linked to our understanding of biology in the name of something as ethereal, transient or abstract as objective “human rights.” Due to such an obvious lack of scientific evidence, I remain even more unconvinced when we defer the issue to the shaky ground of moral constructions. Though I wish for everyone to be free to pursue their own happiness, until further evidence is collected in support of one side, I think the debate is heavily skewed.
Wait…. Who are you?