If gender identity is a real literal thing, why would you assume everyone would have the gender identity they want to have? Not everyone has the biological sex they want to have. If gender identity is as real as biological sex, why wouldn’t some also have an unwanted gender identity?
But instead, everyone coincidentally has the gender identity they want to have, and that’s because gender identity isn’t a real literal thing—it’s just a wish, a fantasy. It’s just the expression of someone’s deepest desire, a desire which cannot be granted by reality so we are expected to grant it ourselves despite reality.
If a truth claim about reality relies on self-identity, then it is inherently unprovable. Believing in it, therefore, is an exercise of faith.
This applies to both gender identity and sexual identity. Both are based on self-identity and therefore are faith-based, not secular.
Oh Progressivism, you gullible fool. In 2016 a woman claims she is a lesbian. Then in 2021 she claims she is a man (and therefore “straight”). And there you are in both cases, nodding your head right along like an idiot, demanding no proof, just taking her word for it. And when 2026 rolls around, what will she claim to be then? What truth claims will she demand you blindly accept? It doesn’t matter. Whatever it is, you’ll believe it, you gullible fool.
Oh Progressivism, you gullible fool. You display such faith in something that doesn’t even bother to call itself a religion, like a girl putting out on a date without even being taken to dinner first. “But he loves me! He said he loves me!”
You gullible fool.
The reason why the LGBT movement has proven such a challenge to organized religion is because the conflict has wrongly been interpreted as religion vs secularism when it is actually religion vs religion.
Gender identity is a faith-based belief that contradicts provable reality and as such it has no business being anywhere near secularism. Sexual identity, on the other hand, does not currently contradict provable reality because it is only an interpretation of it, so believers in sexual identity have the right to argue for its usage within secular society*, but organized religion has an equal right to be part of that conversation.
This is not creationism vs evolution in early 20th-century America. This is the Huguenots vs the Catholics in 17th-century France. The Huguenots stood little chance against the state-backed religion in their day, and we stand as little chance today unless we correct our understanding of what is actually going on. Organized religion can coexist with science, no problem; but organized religion cannot coexist with a religious movement that misrepresents itself as science in order to gain the official support of the state and effectively become the state-backed religion. We’ve seen this conflict before. We know how it will end.
* [Update 06/16/2021] I went too far in this prior statement. Yes, sexual identity is less egregious a violation of secularism than gender identity because at least it doesn’t directly contradict provable reality like gender identity does, but sexual identity is still an attempt to create an invisible construct that people are expected to believe in based on nothing more than faith in someone else’s words. Yes, you have the right to try to persuade our culture to treat the presence of same-sex attraction as a meaningful part of someone’s being, just like I, in contrast, argue that its presence should be treated as meaningless (because it is). However, you do not have the right to demand everyone believe a truth-claim about yourself that you cannot prove, and sexual identity therefore can never be legitimately used as a way to categorize people within secularism unless empirical evidence is discovered to prove its existence and thereafter that empirical evidence is used to identify everyone’s sexual identity instead of self-identity. But that will never happen because sexual identity, like vampires and werewolves, doesn’t actually exist in provable reality. It is nothing more than a faith-based interpretation of that reality, and everyone, therefore, is justified to reject it in favor of a better interpretation.
Secularism, as it is commonly understood today, is only capable of protecting us from control by organized religion. It isn’t capable of protecting us from control by faith-based non-religion.
This is very troublesome given that we live in a world where an increasing amount of people are abandoning organized religion yet obviously not abandoning faith-based beliefs entirely (Exhibit A: gender identity). Our society, clearly, must reconsider what it understands secularism to be.
Secularism is not non-religion. Secularism is proof. It’s time for society to drop any expectation of antagonism between secularism and organized religion specifically and replace that expectation with a general preference within secularism for proof over faith. Only that principle can protect us from control both by organized religion and also by faith-based non-religion. Only that principle can allow secularism to truly be secularism.
Nature doesn't care if it offends you. Nature doesn't care if you wish it were different. Nature simply is. It has been such since long before you were here, and it will continue being such long after you are gone. You can shout, you can cry, you can scream your entire life away, and then, when your end comes, nature will assimilate your body back into itself, completely oblivious to a single complaint. Or, alternatively, you can accept the reality of nature as it is, even if it isn't exactly the way you wish it were, and you can find the beauty, the peace, and the joy it contains for you in the finite time you have here.
It's your choice.
Suicide is a tragic mistake, not a weapon.
We should never use someone's suicide as a weapon in the fight for our point of view because doing so creates an incentive for others to repeat that same tragic mistake.
Suicide is a tragic mistake, not a weapon, never a weapon.
You can prove a man's height. You can prove his weight, his blood type, his skin color, his biological sex. But you can't prove a man is a woman, not without the mystical power of "Gender Identity", not without the magical words "I am a woman".
And what if I don't believe those words are magic?
Divine Authority and "Gender Identity"
Psychologists do not hold precedence over biology. The fact that a man feels more comfortable while pretending to be a woman doesn't mean he is a woman. It just means he is a man in need of a better psychologist.
Some Connected Thoughts about Gender
Gender, if divorced from biological sex, is pointless. That's the true core of our society's conflict over "gender identity" today. It's the cognitive dissonance. We're expected to believe that gender actually matters (and therefore we should bother paying attention to it) and to simultaneously believe that gender doesn't matter (and therefore people can claim to be whatever gender they want, despite their biology). It's us staring up at a bright blue sky while activist bullies are screaming in our ears that it's green, and the whole time Darwin is watching from afar, snickering.
Religion is about the unseen. Gender is not. When gender-identity missionaries knock on Mother Nature's door, she unleashes Darwin to chase them off her lawn.
Behavior identities (also referred to as identity shells) are manipulative, artificial labels placed around behaviors to force us to accept what we otherwise wouldn't. When you see a behavior identity being used, replace the false label with the behavior it is hiding and notice how much clearer the situation becomes.
You are being manipulated. Doesn't that bother you? Because, frankly, it pisses me off.
Everyone treats wrong behavior differently from right behavior. There's nothing remarkable about that. All of us do it, each following our own definition of right and wrong. Whether the personal disapproval of individuals or the legal consequences of government, the effect is the same: a discouragement of behavior we consider to be wrong.
There are, unfortunately, some who try to hide certain behaviors behind a facade of identity in an attempt to place those behaviors out-of-bounds for disapproval; but that manipulative tactic is a topic for another day.
Anti-discrimination laws, which in the past were used to protect the equality of people, are now being used to impose the acceptance of ideology. "Thou shalt not discourage this behavior"—that is the message of anti-discrimination laws today. It's time for such laws to be relegated to the past. As long as we allow them to remain, they will continue to become more and more corrupted.
If a society wants to survive, then one of the most important roles of its men must be that of a father, and one of the most important roles of its women must be that of a mother. If a society recognizes this and has any common sense, then the most important role of its men will be that of a husband, and the most important role of its women will be that of a wife.