Inconsistent Thinking: Transgenderism and Birth Certificates

Have you ever face palmed yourself so hard that it hurt? If not, check out this (link). I can’t tell if progressivists are really just trying to troll us. For those of you too lazy to click and read it, here’s the story – listen up.

A birth certificate was issued in British Columbia, Canada, without a sex marker. Here’s the logic for why this was done:

““The assignment of sex in this culture is done when a medical person lifts up the legs and looks at the baby’s genitals. But we know that the baby’s own gender identity will not develop for some years until after they’re born.”

In Doty’s child’s case, the letter “U,” presumably for unspecified or unknown, has been entered in the spot for “sex.”

The idea here is that the “gender identity” of the baby has yet to be determined or developed, and so the sex of the baby should be recorded as unknown or unspecified. But this is nonsense – these persons are confused about their own ideology and terms. Hear me out.

If a healthy gender identity can be distinct from and independent of sex, and if sex can be known without knowing “gender identity”, as transgender advocates would have us believe, then the assignment of a sex to a baby does not also assign that baby’s gender identity. Hence, that this dispute “…comes as the baby’s parent fights to allow their child to develop their own gender identity” is inconsistent with what they themselves believe sex and “gender identity ” are. They’re confused about their own thinking, it seems.

To put it more clearly, my point is this: Advocates for transgenderism cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they wish to proclaim that sex does not determine or entail a “gender identity”, then they cannot consistently claim that assignments of sex on birth certificates determine or are incompatible with certain “gender identities”. That’s inconsistent. They also cannot proclaim that the sex of the baby is unknown or unspecified just because they don’t know his “gender identity” – again, by their own logic, sex can exist and be known independently of any “gender identity”.

Of course, in saying all of this, I don’t mean to give credence to this idea of gender identity – I think it’s a bunch of BS, after all.  I am just saying what is consistent or not if we were to use their terms and reasoning.




  1. Yes, but the inconsistency is a feature not a bug from their point of view. I’m pretty sure the aim is to make our language and culture so incoherent that normal people will just give up, just go along with whatever garbage their prog rulers are dishing out this week. Consider a guy who wears dresses and says “I’m a woman”. According to the enemy, he (or rather ‘she’) is now “a woman”. They don’t say he belongs to the male “sex” but has a female “gender identity”. They just he’s now a “she”, a “woman”, etc. But what is a woman, if not a female human being? And what is it to be female if not to belong to one of the two biological sexes? Of course, they’ll sometimes admit to some distinction between sex and “gender” when they think they can win an argument that way. But then they just go right back to conflating the two, or denying sex, or whatever. There’s no real theory or argument here and there never was. It’s all incoherent from the start, meant to destroy our ability to think and communicate rationally. So they can impose whatever evil insanity they want.

    • I think you’re attributing conscious/intentional malice where there isn’t any. This often happens when one side of an ideological spectrum can’t understand another side: evil intention is imputed to make psychological sense out of the extreme nature of the disagreement.

      The simpler explanation has the following parts:

      (1) Progs are becoming increasingly irreligous, and so politics is increasingly filling the void left by the departure of religion.
      (2) Polarization has led to a rather large ideological bubble.
      (3) The value of protecting minority groups has become the penultimate value.

      Proposition (1) is true, even though Progs have typically been quite irreligious. There are two reasons for this. First, a group can simply move farther along a specific dimension. Progs weren’t absolutely irreligious. Second, even if a group/culture is – by way of its core beliefs – irreligious, it can even begin to lose peripheral beliefs and customs that could be considered hold overs from a time where its core beliefs were rather religious.

      Most understand and accept that (2) is true for both sides of the ideological divide. The texture of the instantiation of (2) is a bit different, though. For conservatives, it would seem that their near absence within academia has debased their public intellectual and mass media (or whatever their equivalent is) structures over the past 30 years. You can lob all sorts of justified criticism at NPR, NYT, etc., but no one in their right mind can say they are worse than Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, etc. for an informed view of the world. Everyone here knows how (2) shows up on the left so I won’t reiterate that here.

      The combination of (1) and (3), though, is unique to the left in modern times. A superficial way to show this is to simply look at the unhinged reactions following the election. Much better proof is the continuous, forceful moral sanctimony that saturates discussion about the ‘problems’ that minority groups are assumed to face. They have a full salvation story and all the trappings of a religion and religious community. Omnipresent and omniscient government control and censorship is the God who, knows no distinction between the private and public, and who will bring final justice to the heretics. The original sin of non-minority privilege is the unseen (non-veridical) culpable harm that wrecks havoc on individuals and society. People who are not a part of your denomination (Western conservatives) are the focus of your vitriol and ire rather than the true non-believers (barbaric regimes on the international stage). Music and movies must ever be critiqued for the way in which they encourage and support the original sin of privilege. Communities come together in publically recognized places that are understood to be a safe sanctuary from the dark forces that surround you.

  2. Liberalism is the black hole of insanity. The liberal has destroyed grammar along with biology, using the plural “they” as a singular pronoun. I haven’t decided if that is worse than “he or she”, which logically entails either one male, one female, or one male and one female. What next, the variable ‘g’?

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)