In relatively recent memory, individuals across the political spectrum could agree on definitions of basic nouns like men and women, but today these terms—perhaps more than any others—represent the growing schism in Western societies.
At risk of oversimplifying the complexity of the varying perspectives, this piece bifurcates the debate into two camps: Progressives and Conservatives. The latter sees the former as engaged in confused and deviant behaviour, particularly when children are involved. The former sees the latter locked in a retrograde past, unable to cope with tolerance and acceptance of those different than themselves. The difference in position is generally framed as a moral issue rather than a disagreement over terms.
This article will compare these perspectives and suggest that the schism between the two groups is not due only to moral reasoning based on shared premises but also flows from an inability to agree on definitions.
Part 1: The Conservative Position
The Second-Wave Feminist Branch:
The Conservative side of the bifurcation can be split into two further camps, the first of which holds views similar to second-wave feminism. This branch recognizes the rigidness of associating gender roles with biological sex. It proposes discarding (in a way) the notion of gender, suggesting that sex categories and corresponding pronouns ought to refer only to biology, with no expectation that biology determine traits, interests, hobbies, life roles, and so forth. Such a re-conceptualization of sex and gender keeps intact the biological basis of men and women while allowing freedom for individuals to choose unique identities.
The Traditionalism Branch:
Traditionalists agree with second-wave feminists that words like man and woman are primarily biological/genetic terms. However, they do not agree that the connection between sex and gender is irrelevant. Traditionalists believe that being male or female increases the probability that one will have certain characteristics, but they do not believe that biology guarantees these characteristics.
In other words, biology is not a sufficient condition for gender. Because Traditionalists reject the statement, if you are biologically male, then you will have masculine identity, they then can reject the contrapositive of this statement: if you do not have masculine identity, then you are not biologically male. This view can be summarized by stating that being male increases the probability that a person will develop masculine characteristics, but not displaying these characteristics does not mean that a person is not a man. This is true in the same way that a woman who cannot bear children is still a woman, despite the fact that most women are able to bear children.
The Second-Wave Feminism view is more common among younger Conservatives and the Traditionalists view is more common among older Conservatives. Both are relatively common on the Conservative side of the aisle.
Part 2: The Transgender Position
The Male/Female Transgender Position:
The transgender position will also be further split into two camps, the first one arguing that sex and gender exist independent of each other on a spectrum and that the two do not always align. Moreover, when the two do not align, gender supersedes biology rather than biology superseding gender. If a person has a male body but female identity, that person is female.
This idea produces terms like female penis and male vagina, which seem contradictory but follow from the premises without contradiction. The position sometimes makes the claim that a person can be a man in a woman’s body or a woman in a man’s body, implying something akin to a gendered soul or brain.
The Infinite Genders Position:
The transgender ideology is not limited to male and female gender identities. Progressives hold that there are (theoretically) an infinite number of gender identities, and that each claimed identity deserves respect and recognition, generally in the form of pronoun usage. Men and women are still categories of gender (based on identity not sex), but there is room for anyone to define a gender category with its own unique title and corresponding pronouns.
In this way, every individual is given freedom to choose their own identity and have it recognized, therefore affirming their dignity and humanity.
Part 3: The Source of the Disagreement
What should be immediately apparent is that the various positions do not share definitions. Different premises lead to different conclusions, so one should not expect consensus. One should also not spend an inexpedient amount of time arguing over conclusions when they are the outworking of definitions. A useful test in understanding a schism like this is to examine whether each side would accept the others’ conclusion if they agreed with their definitions. Consider, for example, if Conservatives agreed with Progressives on the following:
- terms like men and women refer to non-physical identity and do not have any necessary connection to biology; and
- pronouns are disconnected from genetics and refer to each person’s unique gender identity.
Would Conservatives begin to understand the offensiveness of ignoring gender identity when ascribing labels to people? Would they make a greater effort to use proper pronouns? Now, conversely, imagine that Progressives agreed with Conservatives that:
- the categories of men and women refer only to objective biological sex; and
- masculine and feminine pronouns are based on genetics and have nothing to do with identity.
Would Progressives continue to claim that a person can be a woman stuck in a man’s body? Would terms like female penis and male vagina become oxymora? Would Progressives realize that pronoun usage does not constitute judgement about identity?
This thought experiment supports the idea that the disagreement is due to different ideological languages being spoken. It is reasonable to think that both sides of the debate could be reconciled to the same conclusion if they could first agree on definitions of sex and gender. What does it mean to be a man? Is it an objective biological condition or a subjective state of mind? Fundamental definition questions must be addressed before any progress can be made in the debate. Conservatives and Progressives are at an impasse and will continue to be until they address the root of their disagreement.
Part 4: The Power to Define Terms
Consider a debate that begins with an honest attempt to address definitions. Certain outcomes are likely and certain outcomes unlikely. In the category of likely outcomes is an increased understanding of the other’s position, which could result in a decrease in accusations of bigotry from the one side and mental illness from the other.
In the category of unlikely outcomes is one side accepting the definitions of the other. This is the key weakness of the approach. Progressives understanding that Conservatives view men and women as genetic categories does not actually resolve the debate unless Progressives adopt this definition. Considering such a conversion effectively undermines their entire ideology, it seems unlikely to occur. Conservatives are similarly unlikely to accept that men and women are two of potentially endless gender categories based entirely on abstract self-identity, as this view contradicts the perspective of most societies throughout history.
Whose definitions should take precedence? It is tempting, but too simple, to adopt a laissez-faire approach. In private life this is acceptable, but it does not solve questions of public policy, of which there are many. How, then, does a society select between competing and contradictory definitions of sex and gender?
Certainly Progressives are not required to adopt Conservative definitions, as freedom of thought and speech are paramount to the health of free societies. What is equally true, however, is that Conservatives are not required to accept definitions with which they do not agree.
Perhaps agreeing on this would be a good place to start.