Does radical trans-queer rhetoric encourage scientific dishonesty?
When radical trans queer advocates deconstructed sex into a social construct referred to as gender, they also attempted to transform, sex, a biological reality into an undesirable repressive instrument of inequality. For example, RTQs claimed defining woman as an adult human female was an act of discrimination against males with declared gender identities. They argued that men who defined their gender identity based upon personal myths, fairytales, and feelings of intense envy were actually capable of “feeling like women” because gender was an emotional state not a biological reality. Deconstructivist rhetoric was used to transform gender into a binary debate of ‘my truth’ versus ‘your truth’ by eliminating ‘the truth.’ In the resulting consumer society, sex became gender. As the multi-billion dollar gender affirmation industry demonstrated “gender” is something people can buy, and the medical industry will sell.
RTQs took sex, a once established biological characteristic, and transmuted it into an undefinable social construct known as gender. They failed to understand what happens when an unfalsifiable subjective emotional state was metamorphosized into “the truth.” Their resultant understanding of reality was so incompatible with common sense, it rendered most attempts to exchange information or engage in discourse with them an exercise in futility. RTQ’s ‘everything is a social construct’ belief, gave birth to their ‘nothing is real’ paradigm containing a kaleidoscope of fantastical forms of gender incompatible with reality, because, in their ideology, fantasy, myth, and illusion are the building blocks of “the truth.”
I am critical of radical trans queer ideology because, when everything is socially constructed, nothing is real. When nothing is real personal political narratives become more important than inconvenient observable data. This is a critical vulnerability in the mindset of radical trans queer theorists. I believe this mindset creates an atmosphere tolerant towards scientific dishonesty as a mean of validating “what-is-popular” as if it were truth. When the mere fact that people believe something to be true, makes it true, some researchers will yield to the temptation of proving a popular political narrative to be something it is not: an objective reality. It is my opinion that Johanna Olson-Kennedy (current president-elect of US-PATH) succumbed to this temptation when she attempted to suppress the findings of her federal funded study on affirmative care for gender distressed youth. Dr Olson-Kennedy is presently being sued by ex-patient, Clementine Breen.
If being run through the gender blender meat grinder taught me nothing else. This one thing I know, I am a woman because I was born a girl. There is no feeling. I have all sorts of feelings about having been born a girl. I have loads of feeling about being a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling.
