The Other Side of the Gender Debate
The Other Side of the Gender Debate
The “era of transgender rights” prompts calls for radical change and little criticism.
(Transgender flags line the Front Campus walkway, September 18, 2023. SOURCE - The Spectator)
In the spirit of civil discourse, dissent should be heard. As iron sharpens iron, transgender activists clarify for conservatives the importance of defending the most basic of societal precepts.
Where were the protestors when Matt Walsh spoke at Washington and Lee University? That Walsh’s detractors went no further than planting transgender flags outside Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark, was telling. Walsh’s opponents could explain what they supported but, if prompted, would rather stifle opposition than explain their flawed, largely emotional convictions.
While transgender activists did not confront Walsh directly, the LGBTQ Resource Center and ten other campus departments — the Pride at W&L Employee Resource Group, the Class of 1994 Office of Inclusion and Engagement (OIE), the Roger Mudd Center for Ethics, the Department of History, the Office of the Provost, Student Activities, the School of Law, the Department of Philosophy, Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and the Law, Justice, and Society program — took an indirect approach and hosted last week’s speech by trans-activist Kylar Broadus. The event announcement describes Broadus as “a Black trans man known as a pioneer in civil and social rights for many identities,” and the talk was titled, “Transgender Identity & Visibility in Today’s Society & Legal Landscape.”
(Kylar Broadus event flyer. SOURCE: Student Activities)
Speaking to a crowd in Stackhouse Theater, Broadus explained navigating employment hurdles as a “trans man” and the challenging legal landscape of transgender legislation, doubtless intending to create an emotional response from the audience. However, it only took listening to Broadus's speech to understand the reason for the stiff opposition the transgender movement faces.
Addressing the elephant in the room, Matt Walsh’s recent visit, Broadus insulted Walsh’s intelligence without ever mentioning Walsh’s name. Broadus said, “[Walsh] didn’t know how to spell science.”
Broadus also mocked Walsh’s best-selling children’s book, Johnny the Walrus, which follows a young boy led falsely to believe that he could become a walrus. “Kids are nothing like walruses,” Broadus quipped.
Yet Broadus’s humor missed the point of Walsh’s satire. As implied in Johnny the Walrus, transgender ideology has irreversible, dire consequences for immature children. One need look no further than the Romero family, whose son was eventually sterilized to “become” a girl.
[Warning: Viewer Discretion is Advised]
Children like Josie Romero are most vulnerable, so the transgender movement lures them with emotional appeals originating in postmodernist thought. Doing so rejects objective truth to fill the transgenderist rank-and-file activist class.
Embracing such a postmodernist framework, Broadus said that gender does not depend on “XX or XY chromosomes” but rather on a “genetic soup” that can have many “different formations.” Broadus elaborated further that transgender people are born with different “hard drives,” which doctors can’t realize within “two seconds” of birth.
(Kylar Broadus. SOURCE: Kylar Broadus Website)
Somehow Broadus’s “genetic soup” and “hard drive” changed two times in a lifetime – first from female to non-binary (neither male nor female) and again from non-binary to male. What explains these changes?
Broadus denied that transgenderism — once defined as “gender identity disorder” — is a mental illness and instead classified it as a “medical condition” that requires affirmation as treatment.
Affirmation is necessary because the “genetic soup” that purportedly determines gender is not reflected anywhere anatomically, unlike XX and XY chromosome pairings. One can thus never discern gender from physical appearance, according to Broadus: “Once you start staring at everyone at [a shopping] mall, you’re like that woman looks trans, that man looks trans, and then you start to notice that nobody conforms to a typical stereotype of what a female looks like or a male looks like.”
“I don’t mean to sound offensive to anybody, but my point is you cannot tell by just looking at people,” Broadus concluded.
Broadus’s take is absurd. When Riley Gaines saw Lia Thomas’s exposed member in a swim meet locker room, Gaines knew Thomas’s gender immediately. But Broadus said it is an “untruth” that there would be “a man in a dress in the [women’s] washroom” and that the transgender movement is lobbying for only women to go into the women’s restroom, clarifying that a “trans woman is a woman” in “every way.”
(Lia Thomas (left) Riley Gaines (right) SOURCE: Fox News)
This particular view is why transgenderism is so divisive — 60% of Americans oppose the core tenet of transgenderism, believing that whether one is a man or a woman is determined by the sex assigned at birth, according to a recent Pew Research study.
Societal opposition motivated one of Broadus’ final remarks: “Being trans is not a problem. The problem is that it is the other person’s problem because they have the issue. It is society’s problem.”
But the blame should rest on Broadus and other pro-transgender activists for failing to convince a majority of the American public. A movement that relies primarily on emotional appeal to deter dissent falls flat when its dubious logic is exposed.
Still, the emotional appeal of transgenderism should not be underestimated; emotional appeal embedded transgenderism throughout America’s institutions, as seen in its White House support.
(Biden at White House Pride Event SOURCE: CNN)
Indeed, if for the sake of children like Josie Romero and nothing else, it is clear that falling for the emotional undertones of the transgender argument must be avoided. Broadus is right that transgenderism is society's problem, and compelling argumentation when exposing the “trans” ideology’s core logic will help ensure that the worst effects are never realized, especially on children.
The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions
