How Trans Ideology Demolishes Itself

There’s one thing that will always be the undoing of trans ideology – the pillar upon which it begrudgingly stands: sex.

A good trans activist or queer theorist will tell you that sex doesn’t matter, that it is fluid, and that gender supersedes it. However, were sex not a real thing, were any of their assertions about it true, then being trans-identified wouldn’t be the novel, bold, and profound thing worth celebrating that they claim it to be.

It would be no more spectacular than the reality of male and female already is. We would no more bat an eye at trans identification than clownfish do when one of their own changes sex. It would just be a part of normal life – no more transcendent an experience than any other part of human development. Which is not to say that human development isn’t amazing in its own right, but rather to illustrate that it doesn’t move us in the way that trans activists believe we should be moved by someone’s gender journey.

The Primary Contradiction

Proponents of trans ideology will go so far as to claim that acknowledging sex is an erasure of someone’s trans identity -- even saying something along the lines of acknowledging sex erases their very personhood. And that’s where the primary contradiction of trans ideology lies: in order for it to be a groundbreaking revelation about humanity, it has to have ground to stand on – it has to rely on sex.

You can’t be a “trans woman” unless you’re male. You can’t be a “trans man” unless you’re female. Though those in support of this ideology will nearly always claim that “man,” “woman,” “boy,” “girl,” “male,” and “female” are all “social constructs” that are based solely on self-proclamation and identification, they will not argue this for “trans women” and “trans men.” Only males can be “trans women” and only females can be “trans men.” If you suggest otherwise to them they will often scoff, stumble, and attempt to insult your intelligence before trying to shut down the conversation.

This was most spectacularly on display when stories started circulating on Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) about women “pretending to be trans women” to produce fetish content on pornographic websites such as Only Fans and Pornhub. The comment sections on social media were teeming with activists and trans-identifying people seething at such heresy.

Conversely, everyone else in the comments took the opportunity to ask why they were so offended if “people are who they say they are” and that there was no difference between women and trans-identifying males as they previously had claimed. Some trans-identifying males even took to threatening the women and telling them to “stay out of our spaces,” which was a particularly hilarious display of hypocrisy. The spaces in question, of course, are porn categories, unlike the physical spaces in which these same men wish to and do impose themselves on women.

The Implicit Binary

It seems the mantras and talking points failed or outright neglected to cover this argument. It’s hard to say if this was intentional or merely overlooked out of hubris. Given what we know about the biggest queer theorists, either explanation is likely. If it was an oversight in the messaging, it speaks to their overconfidence; if it was intentional, it was a purposeful attempt to hide the man behind the curtain, so to speak.

It both protects trans identification as something unique and sacred that can’t be changed while maintaining “people are who they say they are” by the omission that women can’t claim to be men who claim to be women and vice versa. Similarly, a man can’t claim to be a “nonbinary trans man,” nor a woman claim to be a “nonbinary trans woman,” because nonbinary is also reliant on understanding that there are only two sexes and the person “identifies” with neither.

All other genders depend on the same principle – an attempt at avoiding the sex binary – which requires a concrete understanding that there is one – even though they claim to be ignorant of it.

You can’t avoid something or identify in or out of it if you don’t think it exists. Even if sex were strictly a bimodal social construct, you would still need the two measurable ends of the spectrum and to know what they are in order to identify where on that spectrum someone falls. That would still require measurable and objective categories.

This is something that activists often ignore in their arguments when they propose the sex spectrum. Objectivity and measurement of values and categories are still requisites of a spectrum. Without them, it would instead be a random series of labels with no discernible traits or values that had any meaning. If that were the case, then there would be no meaning outside of someone’s subjective concept with no capacity for consensus. And without that consensus we can’t establish societal regulations and meaning, thereby making the push for trans identification to be valued and held up in a legal, social, or medical context a completely moot point.

This is where proponents of queer theory and trans ideology, for lack of a better term, played themselves.

The Fall

In their fevered push to dismantle boundaries and definitions for their own, often fetishistic fancies, their arguments undo the very validation they claim to crave.

If sex doesn’t matter or exist, then there is no point in identifying as one, the other, neither, or both. There is no reason to try to imitate or escape one sex’s traits or the other’s. There would be no reason for a gender identity to matter, be celebrated, or be seen as a source of victimhood. No pins, no flags, no self-aggrandizing books about living one’s truth and self-discovery through cross-dressing could exist unless the fact that sex is quite real and immutable is acknowledged.

Unfortunately for activists (but fortunately for the rest of us) no structure can stand while its foundation is being destroyed. With more organizations like the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association starting to reject the objectively false claims of so-called “gender affirming care,” we’ve already started seeing the cracks appear in their poorly constructed ideology.

Eventually, the entire structure they built will fall, but the foundation will endure for something stronger and complementary to take its place.

---

---