This is tedious. Yet another attempt to disparage transgender persons in defense of religious teachings.
There’s not a nicer way to put it: Jane Robbins is an anti-trans crackpot.
Thursday, Robbins delights us all with: If You Think Trans Ideology Is Infantile, You’re Not Wrong. What is infantile — Ms. Robbins — is your insistence that people you disapprove of for religious reasons are adherents to an “ideology.”
Being transgender is not a doctrine, philosophy or ideology. Anti-trans bigotry in defense of scripture is, indeed, an ideology. It is understandable how some of these folks are so easily confused.
Jane Robbins is probably an orthodox Catholic. She is associated with the American Principles Project which was founded by Robert P. George with some help from Luis Tellez, an Opus Dei numerary.
Getting to the text of this diatribe gives one a sense of déjà vu. Robbins recites the usual tired talking points. She attempts to obfuscate the fact that she is only doing this in defense of religious teachings.
It kind of reminds me of the arguments made in opposition to marriage equality. I never entertained one secular argument that same-sex marriage had an adverse effect on traditional marriage. But I digress.
Robbins is pretty adept at ignoring the construct of gender. Who do these people think that they are fooling? (Don’t answer that.)
The “Inception” effect is particularly apparent in the raging transgender phenomenon. It’s a demonstrable fact that sex isn’t “assigned at birth”; that, despite rare natural malfunctions, sex is a binary; and that a human being cannot change from one sex to the other. But proponents of trans ideology seem oblivious to the obvious.
There is no “raging transgender phenomenon.” I think she means that sex is assigned at birth. (Yawn!)
The woman is absolutely batshit crazy:
To understand their thought process, such as it is, we must understand its philosophical underpinnings. Trans ideology stems from queer theory, which is one branch of a general academic philosophy called social justice theory. True believers in these theories reject biological reality as either controlling or even particularly relevant because the concept of objective reality itself is simply denied.
“Transgender people do not care about approval or disapproval. They are addressing a medical condition.”
There is no such thing as transgender ideology! The phrase is an attempt to turn the state of being transgender into something similar to a religion. A religion that Jane Robbins and her ilk disapprove of. People are transgender in order to mitigate the effects of a medical condition.
Queer theory expressly exists to shatter the concept of “normal.” Oppression follows from placing people in categories: sex (male and female), gender (masculine and feminine), and sexuality (straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.). “These seemingly straightforward concepts are seen [by queer theorists] as oppressive, if not violent, and so the main objective of Queer Theory is to examine, question, and subvert them, in order to break them down,” …
She is not entirely wrong about queer theory. However, queer theory has absolutely nothing to do with why people are transgender. The purpose of queer theory is to challenge what people consider to be norms.
In effect, the theory forms a view of sexuality that is not dependent upon approval. Transgender people do not care about approval or disapproval. They are addressing a medical condition which is (obviously) not subject to approval.
“It is all rather simple when one is not torturing logic to conform reality to religious doctrine.”
Trans kids require parental approval. With that support, they thrive. Queer theory has no effect, whatsoever, on the disposition of the parents of gender-diverse kids.
Eventually she goes off the reservation:
So when a biologist writes that humans inhabit an observable binary sex structure in more than 99.98 percent of cases, queer theorists would respond that this is simply an unjustified categorization that oppresses marginalized people who don’t identify according to the observable phenomena. Sex is a spectrum rather than a biological reality, they insist, because they want it to be—and any disagreement constitutes oppression and violence against the marginalized.
Theory is irrelevant and she is misrepresenting her own straw men (theorists); It is a scientific fact that gender (not sex) is a continuum with male and female at the extreme ends. Gender dysphoria describes the incongruity between gender and natal sex.
Our patience is required but, at times, Robbins departs from an esoteric discourse over theory that she doesn’t like.
Trans-radical physicians such as Johanna Olson-Kennedy produce “research” carefully designed to add scientific support to the shaky foundation of transgenderism. Their conclusions may be bogus, but they at least enable ideologues to flesh out footnotes for their papers.
“She presumes that Church doctrine represents incontrovertible truth regardless of evidence to the contrary.”
There is a link in the above quoted passage to another preposterous post of Robbins at Witherspoon Institute. I covered it in detail at the time.
The real purpose of the study she is referring to is to:
The investigators are all highly qualified and the science behind gender dysphoria is well understood. The first gender confirmation surgery took place over 100 years ago.
I will skip all of the social justice theory crap and quote just one more passage from this spectacularly stupid polemic:
Transgender mania thus is explained on a theoretical level by understanding this academic context. It simply doesn’t matter that there’s no science to support it and that rational people are baffled by it. There is no normal, no objective truth.
Jane Robbins is a dogmatist. She presumes that Church doctrine represents incontrovertible truth regardless of evidence to the contrary. She would not know “objective truth” if she swallowed it over dinner. Moreover, most “rational people” depend upon medical science to understand a medical condition.
Ms. Robbins is off in the weeds with ideologies, theories, doctrine, conspiracies, dogma. esoteric reasoning, selective observation, arcane equivalences and general irrationality for two reasons:
- She cannot accept the science because it conflicts with her religious beliefs which amount to the notion that transgender people do not really exist.
- She has no alternative to mitigating the effects of a medical condition affecting about a half-percent of the population.