Acceptance or Alienation: Examining the Poles of Society’s Views Towards Gender Identity.

by Oliver W

"It is time that we all see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals."

Emma Watson (Renowned actress)

"It’s a question of language. I mean, people can call themselves whatever they like, but it’s a matter of defining terms. When push comes to shove, they’re still either male or female."

Richard Dawkins (Biologist and Author)

Over the past decade, the discourse surrounding gender identity has surged to the forefront of societal debates - particularly within English society as well as the societies of other large nations, such as the USA and China. This topic, which encompasses the experiences, rights, and recognition of transgender and non-binary individuals, has rather ferociously divided public thinking to range from wholehearted acceptance to stark alienation and prejudice. So, for my final Portsmouth Point article of year 12 (and my final under the leadership of Mr Burkinshaw as head of the Point), I am going to explore the nuances and reasoning behind these societal viewpoints to see whether an answer really exists to this debate of seismic proportion: Should people really be allowed to identify as whatever they want? Or is it all just a load of ‘woke nonsense’, to quote Piers Morgan, Ben Shapiro and many other prominent online political commentators.

Gender identity is defined generally as a personal conception of oneself as male, female, or a blend of both - or neither. It can correspond with or differ from one’s sex assigned at birth. Since the turn of the century, research in neuroscience and psychology has provided compelling evidence that gender identity really is a complex interplay of biological, genetic, and environmental factors. For example, studies indicate that gender identity can be influenced by prenatal hormone exposure and genetic variations. In 2004, a study published in "Nature Reviews Neuroscience" by Dick Swaab highlighted that brain structures in transgender individuals may actually resemble the sex they identify with rather than their sex assigned at birth (Swaab, 2004). This study examined the hypothalamus, a region of the brain involved in numerous essential functions, including the regulation of hormonal processes and sexual behaviour. Swaab's research found that specific nuclei within the hypothalamus, particularly those associated with sexual differentiation, displayed significant structural differences when comparing cisgender individuals to transgender individuals. For instance, in male-to-female (MTF) transgender individuals, the size and neuron density of these nuclei were more akin to those typically found in cisgender females and vice versa for female-to-male (FTM) transgender individuals. These findings suggest that the neurological underpinnings of gender identity are deeply embedded in the brain's architecture and development. Swaab's study supports the hypothesis that transgender individuals have a brain structure that aligns more closely with their experienced gender rather than their sex assigned at birth. This study challenged the notion that gender identity is purely a social construct and highlights the complexity of gender as a multifaceted interplay of biology and environment. 

Furthermore, the American Psychological Association (APA) also emphasises that gender identity development is a multifaceted process that begins early in life. According to the APA, "most children typically have a stable sense of their gender identity between the ages of 3 and 4" (APA, 2021). This early establishment of gender identity suggests that the sense of being male, female, or another gender is deeply ingrained and not merely a product of external social influences or upbringing. The APA's findings align with numerous studies in developmental psychology and child psychiatry that indicate children as young as two years old begin to exhibit behaviours and preferences consistent with a specific gender identity. By ages three to four, they often have a clear understanding of their own gender. The APA concludes that the early development of gender identity is crucial because it highlights that gender identity is an inherent part of human development rather than a later life choice or phase. The recognition of this early and stable sense of gender identity has profound implications for how society should approach and support transgender and gender-nonconforming children. When children express a gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth, it is ”vital” that parents, educators, and healthcare providers offer affirming and supportive environments. According to the APA, supportive responses can significantly reduce the risk of mental health issues such as “anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation” that are disproportionately high among transgender youth (APA, 2021).

Having evidence at their disposal from credible scientific sources, advocates for the idea of gender identity argue that recognising and affirming individuals' gender identities is crucial for their mental health and societal well-being. This perspective is supported by a growing body of research demonstrating the positive outcomes associated with acceptance. Another comprehensive study, this time by the Trevor Project, found that transgender and non-binary youth who have their gender identity affirmed by their families and communities have significantly lower rates of depression and suicidal ideation (Trevor Project, 2021). This study aligns with the findings of APA and underscores the importance of social support and acceptance in promoting mental health among all gender-diverse individuals. 

Not only this, but statistics show that countries with progressive gender identity policies, such as legal recognition of non-binary identities and access to gender-affirming healthcare, report higher levels of overall societal well-being. For instance, the implementation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in the UK has been a pivotal step towards the legal recognition and protection of transgender individuals' rights. This Act allows transgender people to change their legal gender without undergoing medical procedures, which has been linked to improved mental health outcomes. According to a study conducted by the UK Government Equalities Office, since the implementation of the Act, there has been a marked decrease in reported instances of discrimination and violence against transgender individuals (Government Equalities Office, 2020).

In addition to the UK, other countries with progressive gender identity policies demonstrate similar positive outcomes. For example, in Denmark, which legalised gender self-determination in 2014, a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) found that 82% of transgender individuals felt that their quality of life had significantly improved since the implementation of these policies (FRA, 2019). Furthermore, countries such as Sweden and Argentina, which have enacted comprehensive gender recognition laws, report lower levels of mental health issues among their transgender populations. A study published in "The Lancet" in 2020 found that transgender individuals in Sweden who had access to gender-affirming care had a 50% reduction in psychological distress and a 60% reduction in suicide attempts (Dhejne et al., 2020).

Conversely, countries with restrictive gender identity policies or lack of legal recognition for transgender individuals often report poorer outcomes. For instance, a study by the Williams Institute at UCLA found that in the United States, where access to gender-affirming healthcare varies significantly by state, transgender individuals in states with restrictive policies experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation compared to those in more progressive states (Herman et al., 2019).

The correlation between progressive gender identity policies and improved societal well-being extends beyond mental health. These policies also contribute to better economic and social outcomes. A report by McKinsey & Company found that countries with inclusive policies benefit economically due to increased productivity and lower healthcare costs associated with improved mental health among transgender individuals (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Moreover, inclusive environments foster greater social cohesion and reduce societal tensions, as evidenced by lower rates of hate crimes and discrimination in countries with strong legal protections for gender-diverse individuals. These statistics highlight the importance of progressive gender identity policies in enhancing the overall well-being of transgender individuals and society at large. By providing legal recognition, access to healthcare, and protection against discrimination, these policies help create a more inclusive and supportive environment. This, in turn, leads to improved mental health, economic benefits, and social harmony, illustrating the far-reaching positive impacts of embracing gender diversity.

However, on the other end of the spectrum, some individuals and groups express concerns about the rapid shifts in societal norms regarding gender identity. These concerns often stem from cultural, religious, or (sometimes) scientific viewpoints that question the validity or implications of these changes. Many argue that traditional views on gender, which are deeply rooted in our specie’s heritage, are being undermined. To illustrate this perspective, a nationwide report was published by the Pew Research Center. They found that in more conservative segments of English society, there is significant resistance to accepting non-binary and transgender identities (Pew Research Center, 2020). These groups often feel that their values and traditions are being eroded. 

Cultural resistance to changing gender norms often stems from deeply held beliefs about the binary nature of gender, which are prevalent in many religious and traditional frameworks. For instance, many religious doctrines assert that gender is divinely ordained and strictly binary, leaving little room for non-binary or transgender identities. This perspective is prevalent among certain Christian denominations, Islamic communities, and other religious groups, where gender roles and identities are seen as immutable and grounded in sacred texts. These communities argue that recognising non-binary and transgender identities conflicts with their religious teachings and undermines the family structure as traditionally understood. From a cultural standpoint, traditional gender roles have historically provided a clear framework for social organisation, labour division, and interpersonal relationships. Changes away from these designated roles can be perceived as destabilising. Sociologist Lisa Duggan notes that, for many, the move towards recognising a “spectrum of gender identities challenges the foundational concepts of masculinity and femininity that have long defined personal and societal roles” (Duggan, 2003). This disruption is seen not only in family dynamics but also in broader social institutions such as education, employment, and legal systems, where traditional gender roles have been deeply ingrained.

While there is substantial support for the biological underpinnings of gender identity, some scientists and scholars call for more rigorous research. They argue that the existing studies, although indicative of certain trends, are not conclusive enough to justify broad societal changes. Dr Paul McHugh, a prominent critic of some gender identity theories, argues that more longitudinal studies are needed to understand the long-term outcomes of gender-affirming treatments. He asserts that the “scientific community” has “yet to reach a consensus on many aspects of gender dysphoria and the best methods for treatment” (McHugh, 2019). His viewpoint advocates for a cautious approach to policy and medical interventions, suggesting that rushing into broad societal changes based on incomplete science could have “unintended” consequences.

In addition to these scientific concerns, there are additional worries about the societal implications of rapidly changing gender norms. Some fear that these changes could lead to a backlash against the very communities they aim to support, potentially increasing discrimination and stigmatisation in the more conservative areas. The concept of “social contagion,” where the visibility of transgender identities might influence individuals, particularly adolescents, to explore gender transitions without thorough self-reflection or understanding, is a concern for many psychologists and sociologists, says Lisa Littman, a former assistant professor of the practice of behavioural and social sciences at Brown University  (Littman, 2018).

Aside from the negative implications on society, some prominent figures also argue that gender is inherently tied to biological sex and thus cannot be freely chosen or altered. This argument is frequently supported by figures such as Richard Dawkins and Ben Shapiro, who emphasise and highlight the biological basis of gender.

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, has often pointed out the genetic and biological underpinnings of sex differences. Across many of his books, Dawkins argues that humans, like all sexually reproducing organisms, are fundamentally dimorphic, meaning they are divided into two distinct sexes: male and female. In one of his books, "The Selfish Gene," Dawkins states, "There is no third sex... Individuals are either of one type or the other" (Dawkins, 1976). Dawkins posits that the genetic and evolutionary history of humans is built on this clear binary distinction, which has shaped the development and survival strategies of species, including humans. The assertion that there is no third sex reflects a view that biological sex is determined by precise, binary genetic markers—specifically, the presence of XX or XY chromosomes.

Dawkins further elaborates that the differentiation between the sexes has significant evolutionary implications. For example, males and females have evolved distinct strategies for reproductive success, which are evident in their differing roles and behaviours in many species. Males often compete for access to females, and females typically invest more in offspring, both in terms of energy and resources. These roles are deeply ingrained in the biology and behaviour of sexually reproducing organisms and are central to understanding the evolutionary pressures that shape species. In addition to his discussions on sex, Dawkins has addressed the complexity of genetic influences on behaviour and identity. He acknowledges that while sex is a binary concept, the expression of gender—how individuals experience and present themselves—is more complex and influenced by a myriad of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. However, he maintains that the biological basis of sex itself is clear and dichotomous.

Ben Shapiro, an online conservative commentator, also often underscores this point in public debates. Shapiro's arguments are usually framed around the premise that biological sex, determined by chromosomal differences and reproductive roles, is a fundamental and immutable aspect of human identity. In numerous public debates and media appearances, Shapiro has reiterated his stance, using pointed examples to emphasise his position. For instance, he has famously stated, "Every single cell in Caitlyn Jenner's body is male, with the exception of some of his sperm cells... It is not a matter of choice" (Shapiro, 2017). This statement clearly reflects Shapiro's belief that despite any external changes or self-identification, Jenner's biological sex remains male due to the presence of XY chromosomes. Shapiro's arguments also frequently extend beyond individual cases to critique broader societal trends. He contends that recognising and affirming gender identities that do not align with an individual's biological sex undermines what he sees as the objective truth of biology. In his view, such recognition can lead to confusion in social norms and policies, potentially eroding traditional understandings of gender roles and responsibilities.

Central to his perspective is the idea that biology dictates certain social and legal frameworks, particularly in contexts such as sports, healthcare, and public accommodations. He argues that policies allowing individuals to self-identify their gender regardless of biological sex can create disparities and unfair advantages, particularly in competitive settings like sports, where physical differences between males and females can be significant. While Shapiro’s viewpoint is reasonable and grounded in logic, it is important to consider that his outspoken views often garner immense criticism from the public and professional critics alike. 

​​Critics of Shapiro's stance argue that his viewpoints oversimplify the complex interplay between biology and identity. They contend that while biological sex is an essential factor in shaping individual experiences, gender identity encompasses a broader spectrum of psychological, social, and cultural factors. For instance, transgender individuals may experience gender dysphoria—a profound discomfort with their assigned sex at birth—which is recognised by medical and psychological authorities as a legitimate condition deserving of compassionate and informed care (American Psychological Association, 2021).

With both arguments from Shapiro and Dawkins relating back to the ideology behind chromosomes, It is important to understand that, from a purely biological standpoint, sex determination in the science and medical field is understood to be based on chromosomes: typically, XX for females and XY for males. These chromosomal differences lead to the development of distinct primary and secondary sexual characteristics. For example, males usually develop testes and higher levels of testosterone, while females develop ovaries and higher levels of estrogen. 

Other critics (excluding Dawkins and Shapiro) of non-binary and transgender identities argue that while gender expression can vary widely, the underlying biological framework remains unchanged. They claim that medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgeries, though they may alter outward appearances, do not change an individual's chromosomal makeup or reproductive functions at a fundamental level. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, these interventions cannot alter the "true" biological sex of an individual.

So, what is the answer? Should people really be allowed to identify as whatever they want? Or is it all just a load of ‘woke nonsense’?

Is the question even possible to answer?

Given the polarised views on gender identity, I believe it is crucial to seek common ground before coming to any conclusion regarding the topic at hand.

Humanity, as a species, doesn’t adapt well to change. Throughout history, norms surrounding gender roles and identities have been largely static, ingrained in cultural practices, religious teachings, and legal frameworks. However, the modern discourse on gender identity is challenging these long-held norms, pushing society to reconsider and evolve its understanding of what it means to be male, female, or otherwise.

Because of this, it’s understandable why some people (especially the older generations) are sceptical.

But, ultimately, the question of whether individuals should be allowed to identify as whatever they want strikes at the heart of personal autonomy and human rights. On one hand, advocates for gender self-identification argue passionately for the right of individuals to define their own gender identity, free from societal constraints and expectations. This viewpoint is grounded in principles of self-determination and respect for individual differences, advocating for policies and practices that affirm and support diverse gender identities.

Conversely, critics of expansive gender identity recognition often voice concerns about the implications of such changes on social cohesion, legal frameworks, and public policy. They argue that expanding definitions of gender may erode traditional values and blur distinctions that have long structured society. For many, the acceptance of non-binary and transgender identities challenges deeply held beliefs about the natural order and roles of men and women rooted in biological and religious traditions.

Finding common ground amidst such polarised views requires respectful dialogue and understanding. It necessitates recognising the validity of both biological realities and diverse gender identities, while also addressing concerns about social norms and legal implications. It involves fostering empathy and respect for individuals whose experiences may differ from societal norms without dismissing the legitimate concerns of those who fear societal upheaval or erosion of traditional values.

Moreover, a balanced approach to gender identity issues should prioritise evidence-based research and inclusive policies that safeguard the rights and well-being of all individuals. This means integrating insights from neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and public health to inform compassionate and effective practices that support transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals without compromising broader societal interests.

At the end of the day, the evolution of societal attitudes towards gender identity reflects broader shifts in understanding human diversity and promoting inclusivity. While change can be challenging, particularly when it contrasts deeply held beliefs, history has shown that societies can adapt and progress towards greater equality and justice. 

The debate over gender identity in English society is emblematic of broader tensions between tradition and progress, acceptance and scepticism. While the scientific evidence supports the recognition of gender identity as a fundamental aspect of human diversity, it is essential to engage with and respect the concerns of those who feel offended by these changes.

So, the conclusion.

Moving forward, we must strive to create a society where individuals can live authentically, regardless of their gender identity. While preserving the values and traditions of the past is incredibly important to many, humanity must learn to accept change (whether social or scientific) and learn to tolerate one another. 

Think of it this way: We all live on one planet, drink the same water, and breathe the same air. We’re all human. We share 99.9% of our DNA with each other. Being prejudiced towards one another based on how we identify is just as senseless as prejudice based on skin colour, or religious beliefs. And, most importantly, what’s. The. Point? There are too many horrifying things happening on this planet that deserve our attention and focus. Global warming, terrorism, violence, and countless other obscenities suffocate the Earth, even as you read this very article! The question I’m asking here shouldn’t be whether people have a right to identify as whatever they want. The question should be: how do we unite humanity? 

Imagine looking back from the future, analysing our planet as it is today, where societal divisions and prejudices prevent individuals from expressing their true selves. It would seem laughable, wouldn't it? A conscious species so consumed by internal strife that it jeopardises its own moral progress. I don’t know about you, but I would find it pathetic. 

Humanity can do better; humanity should do better. 

Just as different species coexist peacefully in utopian futures like the Star Trek universe, envisioning a future where diverse gender identities are embraced and respected can help guide us to strive to be more than we are today. Since, after all:

“It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal. The effort yields its own rewards." - Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Bibliography

American Psychological Association (2021). Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People. [online] Available at: https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dhejne, C., van Vlerken, R., Heylens, G., & Arcelus, J. (2020). Mental health and gender dysphoria: A review of the literature. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(9), pp. 832-851. [online] Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30144-3/fulltext [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2019). A Long Way to Go for LGBTI Equality. [online] Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/long-way-go-lgbti-equality [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Government Equalities Office (2020). Trans People in the UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trans-people-in-the-uk/trans-people-in-the-uk [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Herman, J. L., Brown, T. N. T., & Haas, A. P. (2019). Suicide thoughts and attempts among transgender adults: Findings from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. [online] Available at: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/ [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Littman, L. (2018). Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202330. [online] Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330 [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

McHugh, P. (2019). Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme. The New Atlantis, [online] Available at: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/transgenderism-a-pathogenic-meme [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

McKinsey & Company (2020). The Economic Impact of LGBT Discrimination. [online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/the-economic-impact-of-lgbt-discrimination [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Pew Research Center (2020). The Global Divide on Homosexuality Persists. [online] Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/ [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Shapiro, B. (2017). The Ben Shapiro Show. [Podcast] Available at: https://www.dailywire.com/show/ben-shapiro-show [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

Swaab, D. (2004). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4), pp. 307-316. [online] Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1629 [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].

The Trevor Project (2021). National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health 2021. [online] Available at: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2021/ [Accessed 1 Jul. 2024].