The Impetus for Social Conservatism

A logical response to the rise of progressive gender ideology

As the 2024 primaries approach, conservatives need to determine their goals. Sure, a departure from the Biden administration is essential. Reckless spending, the embrace of the most extreme forms of transgressive, progressive social ideologies, and incompetent foreign policy necessitate change. To see how America arrived at this point, though, conservatives need to recognize how their own approach has failed.

The liberal establishment deserves credit: progressive pundits and politicians understand how to galvanize a base around issues that capture the misguided empathy of young people inculcated in left-wing dogma. Conservatives must respond to these tactics quickly if victory is to be achieved in 2024.

Fortunately, the left has gone too far in defending two initiatives that even their own base struggles to reconcile: progressive gender ideology and the attack on parental rights. Republicans need to focus on both issues, an approach proven by election successes over the past two years.

Within conservatism, there are three distinct objectives as described in the Reagan three-legged stool analogy: hawkish foreign policy, laissez-faire economics, and social conservatism. Conservatives have recently struggled in the latter category, and this neglect hurts the GOP. Social conservatism is the most important objective of the three-legged stool because it undergirds the other two planks.

Recently, conservatives have found adherence to socially conservative values an inconvenience. The new secular religion entrenched in Hollywood, Washington, D.C., and among the Republican donor elites places social convenience ahead of social longevity. If conservatives passively stand by as progressivism eats away at the American social fabric, there will be nothing left. Conventional social values undergird free markets and serve as the foundation that allows society to function. A society which is mired in social confusion, which has abandoned the institution of family, and which fails to recognize the inherent differences between men and women is incapable of credibly engaging in the complexities of foreign policy and economics.

No issue other than the farce of gender ideology has shown the unique ability to create new conservatives. The assertion that children can “change” their gender on a whim and consent to invasive medical procedures is the height of folly.

Issues like government spending seem trivial when men claiming to be women and boys claiming to be girls invade women’s spaces. Look no further than NCAA collegiate swimming, where Lia Thomas, a man claiming to be a woman, crushed competitors in the women’s 500m freestyle and tied Riley Gaines, a 12-time All-American swimmer, for fifth in the 200m freestyle. Following the championship, Riley Gaines became an advocate for preventing male, trans-identifying athletes with unfair advantages from competing in women’s sports.

In an April 6th speech at San Francisco State University, student activists and protesters attacked Gaines for speaking against male participation in women’s sports. Opponents chased her down halls, even hitting her. Gaines barricaded herself in a room for hours until police arrived. Fortunately, she left unscathed and is even more determined to speak out.

Ms. Gaines will not be silenced. Nor will Matt Walsh, whose since-postponed speech at Washington & Lee was met with unfruitful calls to be banned.

If progressive gender ideology is true, then proponents should feel confident defending their views. However, progressives and liberals alike struggle to defend their tenets. To embrace leftist gender ideology is to surrender traditional and personal understandings of the most fundamental aspects of human society historically laid out clearly in biology and in prominent world religions.

Only in recent decades (and sometimes in just the past few  years) has academia kneeled to the secular religion of progressive gender ideology. Unlike other areas of academia, there can be no questioning of their gender ideology as the inherent contradictions are self-evident.

Such issues were highlighted in a recent Economist article, which examined controversial aspects of “gender-affirming care” including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery. Scant evidence supports the long-term mental benefits of such care or its ability to treat gender dysphoria, as studies by the sympathetic American Endocrine Society (ES) and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) find. 

Indeed, the article notes a recent precipitous rise in referrals to the British Tavistock gender-identity clinic. The only plausible explanation for such an increase is that gender ideology and being transgender have become social phenomena and presumed solutions for underlying mental health issues.

Three recent papers looking at patients in America, Australia, and Finland find that “70% or more of the young people seeking treatment suffer from mental-health problems.” American diagnoses for gender dysphoria tripled from 2017 to 2021 with 42,000 diagnosed. Science has become hard to distinguish from politics with diagnoses for cross-sex hormones taking as little as fifteen minutes in appointments. 

In the absence of a consistent framework, proponents of gender ideology must instead resort to emotion and platitudes. Hurling supposed insults such as “transphobe” at critics is de rigueur. Progressives dismiss the need for evidence-based thinking when it comes to gender, denying science, the same sin of which they accused conservatives who questioned the efficacy of COVID protocols. Indeed, the appropriate skepticism of European health agencies toward medicalized gender transitions, where high caution is urged, indicates that America’s blind institutional support is delusional.

Ignoring these differences between men and women places women in a vulnerable position. The state of Washington is one of the worst offenders when it comes to radical gender policy. In recent recordings of female inmates at a Washington corrections center for women, they admitted that men claiming to be women were being placed in female cells per new “tolerant” policies adopted in the state. These women are helpless, having few options in terms of advocacy.

In Virginia, victims saw advocacy in advance of the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election. In Loudon County, a high school girl was sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a boy claiming to be a girl. Fortunately, justice was served as the perpetrator was found guilty. The school attempted to suppress the truth, but with the efforts of concerned parents and pundits, including Matt Walsh, the issue received national attention.

The mishandled situation played an integral role in Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia, especially when his opponent, Terry McAuliffe, said parents should not “be telling schools what they should teach.” The incident indicated the need for greater transparency in schools as ideologues impart their gender ideology to minors.

The Washington legislature also recently passed a bill, Senate Bill 5599, that, if signed, will allow transgender medical procedures for minors without parental consent, paving the way for additional irreversible castrations and surgeries leading to sterilization.

While Washington makes greater inroads into stripping away parental rights, Florida governor Ron DeSantis has heeded calls to protect these rights. He signed landmark legislation; in particular, the Parental Rights in Education Act ensures that parents have a say in teaching their children about the sensitive topics of gender identity and sexual orientation. The bill protects parents’ role by prohibiting classroom discussion of these topics until third grade and preventing public school employees from using pronouns which do not correspond to sex. Both bans protect young children from sexualization and ideas of gender malleability.

Governors Youngkin and DeSantis saw impressive election victories and enjoy high approval ratings amongst their constituents of 56% and 59%, respectively. In both campaigns, protecting parental rights and fighting progressive gender ideology were crucial, despite being labeled part of the so-called culture war. Socially conservative policies serve at the core of their successful administrations. Both Youngkin and DeSantis are unafraid of media criticism and remain steadfast in supporting timeless conservative principles.

Conservatives should vote for candidates who likewise refuse to adopt useless quasi-libertarian stances on the most important social issues of the age. In the end, it is worth preserving what is sacred rather than trying to be agreeable, an ever-changing goal post in the culture war that conservatives have, perhaps until now, been losing.

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.