“The great tragedy of science; the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
― Thomas Henry Huxley

So yeah, it’s been quite a year, and writing something was archived on my to-do app after couple of alerts. Sadly, this particular subject kept bugging my Insta algorithm and thought why not write it out.

To begin with, I won’t be walking to the “right” part of this topic. As we can expect, all tracks in “right” will lead to the same conclusion of why this isn’t worth the time, while in reality it’s visible in our public space & time. So I will be going through 3 plausible [rather probable, I guess] logics that could get you in a position to understand this phenomenon or behaviour [whatever you want to call it].

Gender Identity:

“Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person’s assigned sex or can differ from it. In most individuals, the various biological determinants of sex are congruent, and consistent with the individual’s gender identity. Gender expression typically reflects a person’s gender identity, but this is not always the case.”

― Source: Wiki

Transgender ideology, particularly gender politics, has its roots in postmodern socities, where everything is open to interpretation and can be molded according to individual subjectivity. Postmodernists actively challenge the established norms such as science, knowledge, and truth, stating that there are countless ways to interpret these concepts. This fluid approach to identity and reality has led to a reevaluation of traditional gender roles and a greater recognition of diverse gender expressions.

However, it’s worth to note that there are inherent contradictions within these ideologies. When a trans-identified individual claims to “feel” like a woman and asserts that they were born in the wrong body, they are essentially suggesting that there is a specific set of personality traits universally shared by all women. This perspective can be seen as sexist and lacks the revolutionary aspect that some might associate with trans ideology.

Setting aside all the applause and criticisms, we will try to understand this phenomenon or behavior through the eyes of three distinguished thinkers in history. Namely, Hegel, who professed dialectic; Marx, who propounded his materialism; and Hardin, with his ecological objectivity.

gender-fluidity-perspectives

1. Hegel and Dialectic:

  • Hegel’s dialectical method involves the interplay of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis to arrive at a higher level of understanding or truth. First, there exists a thesis to begin with, and then the counter-culture will develop as an antithesis to it. This is to cleanse the pitfalls of the thesis so that they can reach a synthesis by reconciling both.

  • To better understand this, consider recent changes in various cultures. For instance, in certain Arabian countries, women were not allowed to drive until the far-left feminist movement in the West influenced these developed or developing nations to reconsider their morality. Now, we can observe more opportunities opening up for Arab women in corporate and government sectors. On top of it, some of these theocracies have even launched state-sponsored campaigns to encourage women to pursue education and employment.

  • In the context of gender identity, we can consider the thesis as the traditional binary gender roles and patriarchal morality. The antithesis to the same is what we see as ‘far-left-woke-culture’. And we expect a synthesis to be the evolving understanding of gender and gender roles in society.

  • For better understanding:

gender-hegel-perspective

2. Marx and Late Capitalism:

  • So, Marx had this idea about late capitalism, about which he said, “everything solid melts into thin air”. Basically, he saw that traditional capitalist economy would start falling apart or changing big time. And we can totally see that happening in today’s world. Take, for instance, how our personal data and social media interactions are turned into products for big tech companies to make money. Then there’s the gig economy. It’s all about short-term, unstable jobs, and it’s become pretty common. That’s a big shift from the old-school, steady job model.

  • Here are some examples:

gender-marx-perspective

  • Now, applying this back to gender identity, late capitalism has even impacted how we perceive gender. One could argue that it has turned gender into something that can be bought, sold, and even used for political purposes. Plus, it’s very easy to expect corporations to capitalize on this for their for-profit ventures, where market size and participation are the sole objectives.

  • Even Marx wouldn’t have dreamed about natural forms being melted away like this when he quoted them. It has reached that stage where these ideologies are expected to rewrite anything that was once considered rigid in nature.

3. Hardin and Ecological Objectivity:

[This could be the most speculative, or some might say the craziest, approach among all three. It’s important to note that this isn’t based on scientific evidence but rather on speculative ideas rooted in evolutionary theories.]

It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience. -Garrett Hardin

  • Hardin’s ecological perspective on population growth suggests that unchecked population growth can lead to resource depletion and harm to the environment. Thinking we can manage long-term population growth solely by appealing to people’s conscience is a bit of a mistake. He looks at it from an ecological angle and says, “Hey, if we just keep having more and more people without any checks, we’re going to run out of resources and really hurt our environment.”

  • Now, considering that humans are currently at the peak of their population in history, we can see that Earth is under strain. This strain can lead to ecological disruptions, like recent pandemics. However, Humans have reached a stage were they’re capable of developing synthetic antibodies and medical advancements to bypass some of these natural selection pressures.

  • We could argue that gender and sexuality are two distinct concepts, yet they are undeniably interwoven, mirroring the interdependence seen in other species where reproduction is essential for survival. Now here’s where it gets interesting: how about we speculate, in order to naturally regulate our population from within, nature might be subtly encouraging some asexual or non-reproductive tendencies in our species. This is a bizarre idea to sink in, but it suggests that nature could be influencing our biology in ways we haven’t fully understood yet to find its own balance.

  • Such a way, this idea can bridge links with the evolving concept of gender fluidity. It’s like nature and human identity are having a bit of a chat. On one hand, as Earth struggles to keep up with our booming population, we can speculate that nature might be nudging our species towards non-reproductive tendencies, like an asexual approach. It’s kind of nature’s way of hitting the brakes.

Conclusion

This might have been a wild ride! As we learn more about these complex and interconnected ideas, one thing’s clear for sure: the conversation around gender identity is as subjective as the world we live in. It’s a journey of evolution, understanding diversity, and finding balance in an ever-changing human consciousness.