Why disproving and discrediting the transgender narrative is a Pyrrhic victory

Debunking the transgender myth

As a philosopher and a linguist I find it fascinating some of the statements transgender people make; for example: “I was born male but I identify as female.”

When I hear such words my mind immediatly forms that most basic of human responses ‘Why?’ Because I just don’t get it.

Imagine a snooker table with talking balls. The pink ball starts to tell you that he identifies as a blue ball. You would tell him that this is patently ridiculous because by its very nature – a blue ball is blue, and this ball is pink.

It is equally absurd for a man to claim to be a woman. Or to identify as a woman. The very word ‘identify’ is to note and observe a series of characteristics which allow us to label something as belonging to a category. For example… you see a flying animal and proceed to identify it…

Beak – check
Wings – check
Feathers – check
Flight – check
Object identified as a ‘bird.’

The category ‘female’ has an unambiguous meaning as there is a clear set of characteristics which define this category: these are a series of anatomical, neurological, genetic and hormonal features – unique to women. Think of a mildly gender dysphoric passing through the ‘female’ checklist (not an intersex person).

Vagina – negative
Menstruation – negative
Naturally ocurring oestrogen – negative
Womb – negative
Chromosones – negative
Raised in society as a woman – negative

Even if he tries to say he has female interests there are no such thing as female interests as these are social constructs. Even if he claims to have female qualities… such as empathy, communication and listening skills… a man can develop or be born with such skills. I could go on, but I think it is clear that the biological male has not one characteristic which allows him to identify as female. Thus we can can say his identifying as female has no basis in reason, logic or empirical observation. I have completely debunked the trans myth… it is a narrative of nonsense.

Paradoxically, it is at the point where you reveal the hollowness of a transgender’s claim to womanhood – that you achieve a phyrric victory. By showing that it is completely baseless for a man to believe he is a woman and that it defies all common sense that he believes he is a woman, you have only succeeded in defining the transgender condition. Furthermore, you are pointing out what a serious condition it is and why it needs solid clinical support: while it is glaringly obvious on every definition possible that the man in front of you is a man, and you have demonstrated to him conclusively that he’s a man… he continues to feel like a woman. That shows how deeprooted the condition is. It is a belief that lies at the core of his self and must have some neurological base.

Proving the intangibility of transgender claims also has another unsatisfactory side. This is because you have essentially argued that a man who identifies as a woman is suffering from a delusion (our word for self-identifications which have no basis in reason). You are saying that there is as much sense in the transgender’s identification as there is in a schizophrenic´s claim to be Napoleon Bonaparte. This feels wrong, somehow. Why?

It feels wrong because people who suffer from delusions are normally mad. In most cases, barking mad. Your average trans person, on the other hand, is generally completely normal – apart from their identification with a contrary gender. Secondly, grand delusions such as the belief you are Napoleon bonaparte are extremely rare whereas identification with another gender affects (depending on whose statistics you follow) 1 in 250 of the population.Thirdly, there is a high rate of suicide, depression and addiction amongst transgender people. Even if you could definitively prove that it is a delusion then so what? It still exists. There are still millions of people around the word suffering gender dysphoria and telling them it is all a delusion and that they should go home and get over it will not do anything other than push up the suicide rate amongst those who suffer the delusion. Whatever the cause of the condition the best treatment seems to be transition… so that’s what we have to provide.

There are some, however, who argue that a different narrative for transgenderism – ie. that it is a delusion – not a case of being born in the wrong body – could lead to new forms of therapy that do not require surgery or hormones, and maybe even lower the suicide rate.

Such therapies would help – in humane and unpatronising terms – the transgender person see that their identification is a delusion and therefore to reconnect with their natal sex.

First of all, I can’t be sure, but I suspect such a course of therapy would have about as much success as one designed to persuade gay peope that their sexuality was unnatural and that they should reconnect with the biologically correct and natural form of sexuality: heterosexualism. This is not because I believe transgendersim has anything to do with sexuality – but that a transgender’s sense of gender – however irrational you prove it – is as deep seated as a homosexual’s sexuality and it isn’t going to start moving around because of some clever words.

To conclude, recurring to wordplay and logic and other linguistic devices to discredit or disprove the transgender narrative is really a Pyrric victory… all you’ve done is show just how strong transgender feelings are… and sounded like a cunt in the process.