Anyone who has critiqued, or even dared to question, the ideology of the transgender movement likely has been accused of being a “biological essentialist.” A guest post by Robert Jensen
As far as "biological essentialism" goes we can't claim there are any basic, essential differences between men and women, right? Because if we did acknowledge differences that would be admitting women are unredeemably inferior to men. After all, haven't we bought the long-held popular opinion that women are weak, stupid, cowardly and emotionallly overwrought, while men are strong, rational and courageous? This is what women like Evan Urquhart, the Slate writer, believed ever since she was a child, which is why she eventually identified as a man. Many people have bought this conviction, but they don't admit it. It's the corrosive lie that leads many women to deny some essentially uniquely female qualities possibly emotional intelligence, nurturing tendencies more generally displayed by females, even as children. Many men possess these qualities too, but women's essential capacity to give birth would make it imperative that she is equipped to nurture, if you believe in evolution, that is, otherwise the human race never would have survived to exceed all bounds of planetary survival. As more and more biological evidence accumulates indicating subtle sexual differences between the sexes, it becomes more and more repugnant hearing some people deny women's claim to their own value. It simply demonstrates that many women are so fearful of accepting their identity they must deny any special essence. B.S.! I'm so sick of hearing this woman-hating twaddle
I am not referring to Jensen's article here, but referring to a general cultural norm, globally, of seeing "female" as inferior and the term "biological essentialism" as a code word for a "female supremacist" takeover of man's god-given domain. If a womb and breasts aren't biologically essential to the continuation of the human race for the last million years I don't know what is. But "biological essentialism" are incendiary dirty words for women fearful of offending men and for the drag queen autogynophiles striving to establish their authenticity as equivalent females. It's ridiculous to be even discussing the material reality of biological facts.
Hi Betsy, Seems to me you've misunderstood Robert. Think he is arguing that there are essential sexual difference; I didn't notice any claim from him about gender. My remarks suggested gender differences are declining amongst urban people. But that doesn't have to mean that female gender and male gender need be identical.
In fact if gender is unhooked from biology, then its not clear to me that the gender words male and female have entirely fixed meanings. Nurturing a child to whom a woman has given birth is extremely probable, as you say. I don't think that any of this this will lead to women being subsumed under men as you seem to fear.
Well-argued. In science, essentialism is often the point. Magnetic fields have only two poles. Electric charges are only positive or negative, we have matter or anti-matter. Most organic molecules are “chiral”, or right-handed or left-handed, and so on. Social constructs are not physical reality and have continuous ranges of accepted definition. That’s the crucial difference. We can measure biology, but we can’t measure social constructs, one is essential one is consensus.
I think some of the misunderstanding (to put it kindly) that arises may be rooted in that pesky word ‘role’. 2nd wave feminists (hi!) used to talk about ‘traditional sex roles’ meaning they resisted the idea that men & women were somehow biologically destined to behave & work in certain fixed ways, with men biologically destined to be the oppressor.
When we talk about a ‘role in reproduction’ all we mean is that in order to procreate, we need sperm & ova. The female role is to produce the egg that will be fertilised by the sperm, produced as a result of the male role. The word ‘role’ is used biologically.
But somehow, this meaning of ‘role’ has been confused with an idea that it is a woman’s ‘role’ to be pregnant & give birth, & be subject to patriarchal values. Hence the accusation of ‘biological essentialism’.
We need another word to make it clear. I suggest ‘function’ so women & men can each have a different reproductive ‘function ‘.
Nicely done. The one observation I disagree with rests with your reference to gender dysphoria.
It seems to me, though open to exploration, that it is a subset of body dysphoric disorder (BDD) euphemistically called "gender dysphoria" despite that it is very much about "the body." There is a (to me) surprising number of BDD subsets, anorexia, bulimia, those obsessed with their degree of musculature, those who seek happiness through amputation, etc. The notion of transforming the body to achieve a psychological relief is a direct fit, in my view.
There also seems to be a BDD by proxy affect among many, for a varieties of socially constructed reasons, in relation to their children (independent girls/sensitive boys) who are perceived to be "improved" by multiple cosmetic surgeries and a course of pharmaceuticals for life. These improvements are essentialist, perhaps, in that they purport to re-define sex along the lines of gender stereotypes.
Our collective inability to articulate concern for the dignity of those who see themselves as physically "born wrong" without denying dignity to those who view an endless variation in how males and females can "be" in society underlies the current trend, which I hold is regressive, homophobic and sexist in appalling ways.
Persons of both the female and male sex can and should be free in a healthy society to rise to their capacities and "be" fully themselves in whatever form that takes without recourse to mimicking one or the other, of developing 3-72 "identities" to justify oneself. Self-actualisation is an internal thing, and imo an ideal society enables that freely. An unhealthy society enables the "born wrong" ethic while enabling extraordinary profits through cosmetically reproducing stereotypes that should have been transcended years ago.
The ripple effect of conflating the pain of psychological distress with surgical interventions extends through forced compliance that itself causes psychological damage (and too often destruction of families, careers, etc.) effects which are ignored in the general discourse.
In this, while noting the veracity of the “biological existentialist” epithet , I think it may be another diversion, a deflection from the sad reality of BDD.
That is less a matter of biology (despite some genetic predispositions) than of psychology. And our psychologists have let us down.
Agree, but your mention of DSD’s needs more clarity. It is my understanding that, despite some ambiguity of external sex organs at birth, everyone with a DSD is male or female.
Hi Robert, Like to thank you for your piece, which seems to me to be a calm attempt at rigor - i.e. just what is needed.
I would add that urban women and urban men are becoming more psychologically similar. For example I had noticed how many women astronomers I was coming across in discussions around what the James Webb telescope is telling us, and a little research on my part disclosed that a third of young astronomers are women. And lets be clear that astronomy involves lots of maths and physics.
Incidentally, the Astronomer Royal in Scotland is a woman, Professor Catherine Heymans, who is a professor at Edinburgh University.
Now astronomers are not a random sample of the population, but still it is a little piece of evidence for my belief that urban women and urban men are becoming more psychologically similar, and so increasingly doing the same work.
And a major reason for this is that the economy needs this. We need for instance all the good maths and physics educators that we can produce, all the good doctors, business people, etc.
Our economy would be in even worse shape than it is if this was not happening.
As always, the people who SHOULD be reading this and taking it in won't be subscribers but thank you for your contribution to this critical conversation.
It's a hellscape for women these days. I never feel fully safe anywhere in public from wither men or women because women are as likely to support trans ideology as men.
Excellent article. I might suggest that the loose analogy to “gender” in the context of this article would be “maturity.” That is, there is a set in stone biological age - how long you have been on this Earth - and then there is how mature you are, whether emotionally, intellectually or physically, and one can be more or less mature in one way and mature to a totally different level in another realm (lie Sheldon Cooper of Young Sheldon being very mature intellectually for his age, but his twin sister is more mature than he is emotionally, etc.)
" I don’t think we have the research tools that allow us to make definitive assessments about intellectual, psychological, or moral differences between males and females"
I'm afraid that the author is at least partially incorrect according to Jordan Peterson in this assertion.
Although Jordan Peterson, to my knowledge, has made no claims about sex-based differences in intellectual or moral bases between men and women, except perhaps as products of their psychological differences, the psychological differences between men and women are both striking and significant, as well as extensively noted and discussed in the relevant academic literature.
This is lucid and helpful. I think it would also benefit from a deeper, more concrete historical perspective.
Prior to the rise of transgender culture, biological essentialism had negative connotations because the exclusion of women as a sex class from many professions and activities was based on the belief that their reproductive capacity determined their social destiny and their psychological makeup. Read Virginia Woolf to remember how it once was for women. "Women can't paint; women can't write." "Women can't do athletics; they'll hurt their wombs!" "Women can't hold political office; their children won't be properly cared for."
There is so much cultural amnesia about what life was really like for women not so long ago. Many women alive now in America could not buy their own property when they were young -- and in other parts of the world, that's still true. Transgenderism erases women as a sex class and represses what we have achieved in our historical struggle for freedom and self-determination.
The discussion here helps us see that sex and gender are not the same thing, Why? Because of the fact that the sexual details do not change, but gender ones can and do change. So the old arguments about biological men having to lead are being challenged in most countries. But in that case, the simple fact that gender can evolve but sex is fixed shows that sex and gender are different, although the gender meanings plainly continue to have links to sexual facts, eg that only biological women can produce children.
Brilliantly clear, and undramatic. A very useful essay to share with others. Thank you for posting.
As far as "biological essentialism" goes we can't claim there are any basic, essential differences between men and women, right? Because if we did acknowledge differences that would be admitting women are unredeemably inferior to men. After all, haven't we bought the long-held popular opinion that women are weak, stupid, cowardly and emotionallly overwrought, while men are strong, rational and courageous? This is what women like Evan Urquhart, the Slate writer, believed ever since she was a child, which is why she eventually identified as a man. Many people have bought this conviction, but they don't admit it. It's the corrosive lie that leads many women to deny some essentially uniquely female qualities possibly emotional intelligence, nurturing tendencies more generally displayed by females, even as children. Many men possess these qualities too, but women's essential capacity to give birth would make it imperative that she is equipped to nurture, if you believe in evolution, that is, otherwise the human race never would have survived to exceed all bounds of planetary survival. As more and more biological evidence accumulates indicating subtle sexual differences between the sexes, it becomes more and more repugnant hearing some people deny women's claim to their own value. It simply demonstrates that many women are so fearful of accepting their identity they must deny any special essence. B.S.! I'm so sick of hearing this woman-hating twaddle
I am not referring to Jensen's article here, but referring to a general cultural norm, globally, of seeing "female" as inferior and the term "biological essentialism" as a code word for a "female supremacist" takeover of man's god-given domain. If a womb and breasts aren't biologically essential to the continuation of the human race for the last million years I don't know what is. But "biological essentialism" are incendiary dirty words for women fearful of offending men and for the drag queen autogynophiles striving to establish their authenticity as equivalent females. It's ridiculous to be even discussing the material reality of biological facts.
Hi Betsy, Seems to me you've misunderstood Robert. Think he is arguing that there are essential sexual difference; I didn't notice any claim from him about gender. My remarks suggested gender differences are declining amongst urban people. But that doesn't have to mean that female gender and male gender need be identical.
In fact if gender is unhooked from biology, then its not clear to me that the gender words male and female have entirely fixed meanings. Nurturing a child to whom a woman has given birth is extremely probable, as you say. I don't think that any of this this will lead to women being subsumed under men as you seem to fear.
Ian Mordant
Clarity. Reason. Insightful. Good piece, thanks for posting.
Well-argued. In science, essentialism is often the point. Magnetic fields have only two poles. Electric charges are only positive or negative, we have matter or anti-matter. Most organic molecules are “chiral”, or right-handed or left-handed, and so on. Social constructs are not physical reality and have continuous ranges of accepted definition. That’s the crucial difference. We can measure biology, but we can’t measure social constructs, one is essential one is consensus.
Thank you.
I think some of the misunderstanding (to put it kindly) that arises may be rooted in that pesky word ‘role’. 2nd wave feminists (hi!) used to talk about ‘traditional sex roles’ meaning they resisted the idea that men & women were somehow biologically destined to behave & work in certain fixed ways, with men biologically destined to be the oppressor.
When we talk about a ‘role in reproduction’ all we mean is that in order to procreate, we need sperm & ova. The female role is to produce the egg that will be fertilised by the sperm, produced as a result of the male role. The word ‘role’ is used biologically.
But somehow, this meaning of ‘role’ has been confused with an idea that it is a woman’s ‘role’ to be pregnant & give birth, & be subject to patriarchal values. Hence the accusation of ‘biological essentialism’.
We need another word to make it clear. I suggest ‘function’ so women & men can each have a different reproductive ‘function ‘.
Nicely done. The one observation I disagree with rests with your reference to gender dysphoria.
It seems to me, though open to exploration, that it is a subset of body dysphoric disorder (BDD) euphemistically called "gender dysphoria" despite that it is very much about "the body." There is a (to me) surprising number of BDD subsets, anorexia, bulimia, those obsessed with their degree of musculature, those who seek happiness through amputation, etc. The notion of transforming the body to achieve a psychological relief is a direct fit, in my view.
There also seems to be a BDD by proxy affect among many, for a varieties of socially constructed reasons, in relation to their children (independent girls/sensitive boys) who are perceived to be "improved" by multiple cosmetic surgeries and a course of pharmaceuticals for life. These improvements are essentialist, perhaps, in that they purport to re-define sex along the lines of gender stereotypes.
Our collective inability to articulate concern for the dignity of those who see themselves as physically "born wrong" without denying dignity to those who view an endless variation in how males and females can "be" in society underlies the current trend, which I hold is regressive, homophobic and sexist in appalling ways.
Persons of both the female and male sex can and should be free in a healthy society to rise to their capacities and "be" fully themselves in whatever form that takes without recourse to mimicking one or the other, of developing 3-72 "identities" to justify oneself. Self-actualisation is an internal thing, and imo an ideal society enables that freely. An unhealthy society enables the "born wrong" ethic while enabling extraordinary profits through cosmetically reproducing stereotypes that should have been transcended years ago.
The ripple effect of conflating the pain of psychological distress with surgical interventions extends through forced compliance that itself causes psychological damage (and too often destruction of families, careers, etc.) effects which are ignored in the general discourse.
In this, while noting the veracity of the “biological existentialist” epithet , I think it may be another diversion, a deflection from the sad reality of BDD.
That is less a matter of biology (despite some genetic predispositions) than of psychology. And our psychologists have let us down.
Agree, but your mention of DSD’s needs more clarity. It is my understanding that, despite some ambiguity of external sex organs at birth, everyone with a DSD is male or female.
Yeah, there is no "true hermaphrodite."
Hi Robert, Like to thank you for your piece, which seems to me to be a calm attempt at rigor - i.e. just what is needed.
I would add that urban women and urban men are becoming more psychologically similar. For example I had noticed how many women astronomers I was coming across in discussions around what the James Webb telescope is telling us, and a little research on my part disclosed that a third of young astronomers are women. And lets be clear that astronomy involves lots of maths and physics.
Incidentally, the Astronomer Royal in Scotland is a woman, Professor Catherine Heymans, who is a professor at Edinburgh University.
Now astronomers are not a random sample of the population, but still it is a little piece of evidence for my belief that urban women and urban men are becoming more psychologically similar, and so increasingly doing the same work.
And a major reason for this is that the economy needs this. We need for instance all the good maths and physics educators that we can produce, all the good doctors, business people, etc.
Our economy would be in even worse shape than it is if this was not happening.
Ian Mordant
Good point
As always, the people who SHOULD be reading this and taking it in won't be subscribers but thank you for your contribution to this critical conversation.
It's a hellscape for women these days. I never feel fully safe anywhere in public from wither men or women because women are as likely to support trans ideology as men.
Excellent article. I might suggest that the loose analogy to “gender” in the context of this article would be “maturity.” That is, there is a set in stone biological age - how long you have been on this Earth - and then there is how mature you are, whether emotionally, intellectually or physically, and one can be more or less mature in one way and mature to a totally different level in another realm (lie Sheldon Cooper of Young Sheldon being very mature intellectually for his age, but his twin sister is more mature than he is emotionally, etc.)
" I don’t think we have the research tools that allow us to make definitive assessments about intellectual, psychological, or moral differences between males and females"
I'm afraid that the author is at least partially incorrect according to Jordan Peterson in this assertion.
Although Jordan Peterson, to my knowledge, has made no claims about sex-based differences in intellectual or moral bases between men and women, except perhaps as products of their psychological differences, the psychological differences between men and women are both striking and significant, as well as extensively noted and discussed in the relevant academic literature.
This is lucid and helpful. I think it would also benefit from a deeper, more concrete historical perspective.
Prior to the rise of transgender culture, biological essentialism had negative connotations because the exclusion of women as a sex class from many professions and activities was based on the belief that their reproductive capacity determined their social destiny and their psychological makeup. Read Virginia Woolf to remember how it once was for women. "Women can't paint; women can't write." "Women can't do athletics; they'll hurt their wombs!" "Women can't hold political office; their children won't be properly cared for."
There is so much cultural amnesia about what life was really like for women not so long ago. Many women alive now in America could not buy their own property when they were young -- and in other parts of the world, that's still true. Transgenderism erases women as a sex class and represses what we have achieved in our historical struggle for freedom and self-determination.
A further thought if I may:
The discussion here helps us see that sex and gender are not the same thing, Why? Because of the fact that the sexual details do not change, but gender ones can and do change. So the old arguments about biological men having to lead are being challenged in most countries. But in that case, the simple fact that gender can evolve but sex is fixed shows that sex and gender are different, although the gender meanings plainly continue to have links to sexual facts, eg that only biological women can produce children.
Ian Mordant