Guest post: A twisted and contorted commitment

Originally a comment by Sastra on Imagining way too many possibilities.

If someone claims to be sexually attracted to members of their own sex and behaves accordingly — demonstrates romantic attachments and physical intimacy with members of their own sex— that’s pretty damn straightforward (so to speak.) We don’t have to question whether sex exists, wonder what a man or woman is, rewrite evolutionary biology, or exercise huge amounts of trust in their subjective reliability in “knowing their own sexual orientation.” Catch a couple of teens canoodling under the bleachers and there’s the objective diagnosis. Sexual attraction isn’t complicated.

Someone claiming to be the opposite sex in their mind would be equally straightforward, if all we were looking at were their personal feelings and beliefs. Instead, we have to overhaul pretty much everything, from epistemology to ontology to biology to psychology to feminism. “Affirming trans identities” isn’t just problematic because of the medical commitments being made on behalf of young children and teens. It’s a twisted and contorted commitment made on behalf of pretty much everything.

I can understand why teachers and others consider transgender claims and see a superficial resemblance to being gay or lesbian. But only years of looking at religious, paranormal, and pseudoscientific beliefs helps me catch a glimmer of understanding concerning how they seem to be able to stop looking so easily. It’s fascinating, in a macabre, depressing sort of way, I guess. And it’s wrong enough and testable enough that it may eventually be looked back on in surprise.

3 Responses to “Guest post: A twisted and contorted commitment”