Transgenderism is a false view of anthropology, based upon a series of premises contrary to reason and reliant upon distinctly religious ideas that happen to be false and should not be accepted as true, good, or beautiful. Its power as an ideological force—observable in its dramatic capture of the political debate in recent years—can, to some degree, be attributed to the religious nature of its presuppositions, which also demonstrates the importance of decisively rejecting its religious conclusions and proscriptions. But first, let us recap just a few of the quite astonishing consequences of this movement and the effects it has had on our society—all of which a mere decade ago would have been considered unthinkably absurd.
In this secular age of ours, we like to presume that the religious spirit which has historically motivated civilisations and empires the world over has been snubbed out and replaced by the doctrine of science and rationalism. That our age is indeed a secular one and that the debates which concern our time have transcended primitive superstition are not conclusions that can justifiably be reached when one gives due attention to the true nature of the political and social quandaries vexing our society.
In March, Joe Biden declared Easter Sunday to be “Transgender Day of Visibility” in a move which outraged many and was received as an assault on the holiest day of the year. In one sense, this was of course deeply shocking. Yet it is not as shocking as one might initially presume and is actually somewhat consistent with the fact that transgenderism, as a political and ideological movement, is profoundly religious in its orientation, particularly in its contrast with Christianity. Amidst the noise about the death of God and the decline of faith, the political climate of the West has become charged with religious ideas and impulses masquerading under the supposed secularism of the social movements gripping our culture which, properly explored and unearthed, will aid us in better addressing this descent into heresy.
Transgenderism is a false view of anthropology, based upon a series of premises contrary to reason and reliant upon distinctly religious ideas that happen to be false and should not be accepted as true, good, or beautiful. Its power as an ideological force—observable in its dramatic capture of the political debate in recent years—can, to some degree, be attributed to the religious nature of its presuppositions, which also demonstrates the importance of decisively rejecting its religious conclusions and proscriptions. But first, let us recap just a few of the quite astonishing consequences of this movement and the effects it has had on our society—all of which a mere decade ago would have been considered unthinkably absurd.
Some doctors in the NHS are now referring to ‘human milk’ rather than breast milk and are arguing that milk produced by men who have taken hormones to induce lactation is just as beneficial to newborn children as that belonging to mothers. Medical bodies are deliberately removing terms like mother from maternity guidance or turning away men from giving blood unless they confirm that they are not pregnant. Whilst the primary impulse of the movement may have once been restricted to normalising adults identifying as the opposite sex, increasingly activists are turning their focus to so-called “transgender children.” In the U.S. specifically, there have been shocking examples of child mutilation—as in the case of detransitioner Chloe Cole who had a double mastectomy at the age of 15—and in Scotland certain politicians have recently argued that we ought to consider allowing eight-year-olds to legally change gender. The fervour with which this doctrine is being preached shows no signs of abating, particularly among the highly vocal activist base.
How, then, has it come to this? How has this profound shift in our frame-of-reference for understanding the human person occurred so dramatically and how has it had such a commanding influence upon our public institutions? It seems to me that we must pay attention to the fundamental religious presuppositions undergirding the ideology, specifically as it relates to its views on anthropology and the relationship between the soul and the body.
Anthropology has been a central aspect of religious thought for millennia and has been of essential importance for Christian theological reflection. The nature of mankind is specifically explored in the opening chapters of Genesis, where men and women are declared to be created in “the image and likeness of God”—a description ordinarily only applied to the king in surrounding Ancient Near Eastern cultures. The relationship between men and women is explored in these chapters and informs the doctrine of the Church which has celebrated and underscored the distinctiveness and complementarity of the sexes.
Over the last century or so, various social movements have sought to water down the distinctiveness of the sexes and propagate the view that men and women are essentially the same. This motivation undergirds the feminist movement. It was also the reasoning deployed to justify the legalisation and acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is likewise thought to lend support to transgenderism. After all, the more the distinctiveness of men and women is disputed, the easier it is to argue that a man can indeed become a woman and vice versa. The different duties, responsibilities, and expectations which were once thought proper to men and women respectively have been done away with to the point that it becomes easier to accept an opposing anthropological argument that seeks to diminish the complementarity of the sexes and makes it possible for transformation to occur.