LGBTQ issues have had a controversial place in the status quo, and politics is no exception. Across parties, LGBTQ conflicts tend to emphasize the ‘T,’ trans, a self-assigned classification: folks born a male or a female that choose to become the opposite sex which ideally aligns with their identities. In that regard, politicians and lawyers alike have scrutinized the exigencies of LGBTQ rights, their moral and philosophical validities, and whether humans can overstep biological conventions and force their identities upon populaces. 

In 2019 the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that expanded federal civil rights laws for LGBTQ folks in public spaces [1]; the reasoning was occupational and leisurely security, where individuals’ distinct identities could not justify societal mistreatment. Just a year later, Bostock v. Clayton County emerged, echoing similar sentiments. Gerald Bostock, a gay man, was openly disparaged for his identity at the workplace. Eventually reaching the Supreme Court, judgment ruled 6-3 in favor of Bostock, upholding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating based on the basis of sex or gender [2]. Needless to say, there has been increased legal favorability towards LGBTQ rights, but the crux of the matter, however, seems to be left out from the courtroom: the integrity of sex and gender. Sex refers to one’s biology; gender to socially-constructed roles associated with sex. Zealous proponents of transgender rights seek to merge these concepts, where transgender-men, for instance, could participate in women’s sports [3]. And that, this essay argues, is an incorrect assumption. 

Trans-activists who believe in countless gender identities have rattled classifications of man and woman. They contradict biological orthodoxy, claiming that there are no natural categories of male and female humans, and so, any attributing words should be moot. Yet, such mentality veers away from practicality. If society is not equipped with some basic understanding of physical distinctions, it is deprived of that enduring capacity to perceive the political and material world. Civil rights, gender discrimination, all these binary-oriented issues (as they pertain to a man and to a woman in society) blurs into a muddied swirl of artificial entitlement and self-actualization. Who is to ascertain, now, why anatomical – if not divinely ordained – foundations of a human fail to account for identity crises? That a man or woman’s disposition becomes so inconsequential to him/her either are compelled towards hormonal replacement therapy and the likes to reconcile biology with identity? British philosopher Kathleen Stock aptly premises this conversion as “a psychological identity misaligned with the male sex,” which, “is now a criterion sufficient for womanhood” [4]. Evidently, anatomy is appropriated by gender identity, where sex isn’t dimorphic, but scaled, and where classical understandings of male and female operate on psychology, not biology. There have been arguments that those two areas are one and the same, but a rebuttal – and fallacy – can be developed. Humans are born a certain way. Generally speaking (ignoring genetic mutations and birth defects) cells either contain a pair of XX chromosomes or a pair of XY chromosomes upon which the body and mind matures. From there, molecular sentience (different combinations of DNA ushers reactivity of proteins in cells, neuron firings in the brain, and predetermined genetic sequences induce hormone pathways) creates biological sentience where man and woman alike are able to think for themselves. Here, via experiential learning, they are able to conceptualize identity [5]; they may even come to learn that their identity-based actions and beliefs disagree with their assigned sex, compelling them to undermine the concept altogether. Defenders of the spectrum orient themselves around such a disagreement, and so do legal cases. In Lusk v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Christina Lusk, a transgender woman, sued her male-jail for sexual harassment and sought placement in a woman’s prison instead [6]. Her wish was granted. But here, the fallacy lies. The gender spectrum assumes that if any human ambiguity presents itself, classical sex theory founders. That is too much to demand, especially since the transgender community seems to believe that expression of identity is paramount to sex, which ultimately, is not. The body, as previously stated, is born a certain way from which men and women can certainly evolve their thoughts. But psychology can never transcend the facts of the matter. There are tigers with no stripes. Albino dogs. Albino cats. Dark-haired cattle. Four-fingered humans. Amputees. Take then, a legless tiger that nurtures its prey. Rather surprising behavior. Yet still, it is classified as a cat. 

Similarly, there are cases in the literature where one’s sex becomes muddled at birth, forming ambiguous genitalia out of defective or mis-balanced proportions of XX-XY chromosomes. Coined as DSD (Differences of Sex Development) mutations of these sex chromosomes have been known to diminish specific androgens – like testosterone and estrogen – from inducing proteins necessary for male/female pubescence. For one, the DAX/NROB1 gene pair up-regulates “anti-testes” in the ovary, meaning that females are unable to develop male genitals [7]. If DSD were to occur after embryonic development, where the gonad (organ that gives rise to either a testes or ovary) of the fetus – equipped with all the usual female characteristics – forms a testes out of a faulty DAX/NROB1 pair, the biological implications would be contradictory: during puberty she would develop male-like traits, both physically and mentally. Yet, all the same, it wouldn’t be sound to mention DSD or the like when referring to the possibility of multiple sexes. It has already been established that biology is preordained and psychology is a human’s ever-evolving state of mind; DSD fundamentally alters one’s biology, which in turn influences psychology. It also occurs with around a 0.5% clinical frequency [8]. That is not to say we must disregard it with passive indifference. Rather, we must approach it like we do with any other rare alteration in the human body: reason. Consider, would one be prone to throw conjoined twins into the sexual mix, since brother and sister or sister and sister, fused at birth, often share a heart, liver, and upper digestive tract? Certainly not. Because as stated previously, when any sort of ambiguity presents itself notions of the classical theory supposedly founder. But isn’t that the difficulty? Society has structured a binary sex system not because it is lazy, but because it is reasonable. Humans, being reasonable creatures, after all, are prone to rationalize their surroundings: efficiency and inclusivity are all considered. But we must not mistake the outcomes of such rationality inconsiderate! For those rare deviations that present biological ambiguity, we have drafted medical lists and educated doctors on the nuances of the human body. Anytime there’s a rift in society skepticism grows, scientists are throttled, and accusing fingers point at the Indifferent Institution of Science too rigid to accommodate the changing times. But in fact, it does! It isn’t indifferent, but invested. By irrefutably establishing a basis for biological and psychological development, by accounting for chromosomal mishaps and rare diseases, the Invested Institution of Science has created a structure that is altogether considerate. Recall the example of a prey-tending tiger. Some might be prone to conclude that because the tiger has no legs, it cannot catch prey, and so, has taken to tending them. The beast behaving unconventionally, though, does not refute its biology; it is a tiger through and through, shaped by its shortcomings. Now, it is a rather rare, extreme circumstance, and thus it is in no one’s best interest to deem all tigers’ behavior as so. Similarly so for DSD. The Invested Science also strives for truth, where biological sex influences gender beliefs, but may never be overridden by it. This ushers an earlier premise: the integrity of sex and gender. If transgender activists allow identity/gender to supersede sex in decision-making the matter’s morality is questioned. A biological male who perceives ‘herself’ as a woman desires to participate, for instance, in a women’s swimming competition. Already, one can see the flaw. Men are predisposed to higher muscle mass, bone density, and broader skeletal structure which offers them a distinct advantage against women [9]. Otherwise, Science would have not bothered with distinction in the first place.

Solutions have been proposed: scientific, legal, and otherwise. This brief essay has approached the contemporary issue of transgenderism from a biological perspective, for without it, legal resolutions would not carry enough credibility. After having stated some reasoning, a possible legal solution could align with Idaho’s HB 500 anti-trans law which regulates the participation of trans-athletes in high school athletics [10]. For the issue of trans-individuals is representation. Achieving this while conforming to widely-held scientific proponents could harness the spirit of a trans-gender ban in clearly defined male/female sports from HB 500, make it so that trans-females/trans-males compete exclusively with other trans-females and males, and insert this as a clause in the Equality Act of 2016. As for societal realms, trans-individuals can thrive in their self-made identities without intruding on clearly defined barriers (bathrooms, gender prisons, etc.). A transgender man is still female and a transgender female is still a man. There is no going around it. Respect should be sustained by biologically-sound principles. A man who thinks he is a woman does not become entitled to women’s rights because humility must be preserved. Identities are essentially feelings, and feelings do not justify nor constitute intrusions in the material world. However, the essay recognizes feelings are a powerful element of human nature, and should be respected, if not out of respect for others, but for transgender-individuals. Like-minded realms of society should be accepted within the larger American narrative, tolerated, and humbled, but never forcibly conformed to [11].