Thursday, May 12, 2016

Loretta Lynch

Our brave Attorney General Loretta Lynch thinks the government of her assigned state of birth, North Carolina, is engaging in Jim Crow-like bigotry for segregating public facilities according to biological sex instead of the brand new concept of gender identity. Putting aside what one would think would be obvious to any highly-trained J.D, namely that the analogy to Jim Crow is at best dubious because the evil of its laws consisted in the segregation itself and NOT by what criteria the segregation was done, Lynch’s push for the recognition of gender identity is problematic. How do you define gender identity?

Any definition of gender identity you can come up with runs afoul of either the claims of the transgender community or the wishes of the LGBT Alliance in general.

If you define gender by anatomy, then obviously you are contradicting the claims of women who had or still have penises. If you define it by behaviour, dress, or any other outward appearance, then you are making gender identity dependent upon the social construction of heteronormative gender rôles. Not only does that contradict the claims of many transgender people who, despite having been raised to conform to these rôles, have struggled to defy them, it also brings back the very thing that gays and Lesbians along with feminists have sought and worked tirelessly to overcome, namely traditional gender rôles.

So, if gender identity cannot be defined by anatomy, behaviour, or appearance, then what's left? Nothing besides the individual's say so, and an individiual’s say so is hardly a definition.

Gender identity lacks a definition. It is as metaphysically nebulous as souls are to atheists, and if we can't ask any one to accept something for which there can be no concrete definition, we certainly can't expect people to accept the impossibly murky concept of "gender identity".

No comments: