The debate over gender identity …

I watched with amazement the other night when an advocate for transgender rights said that gender is whichever sex someone feels they are and has nothing to do with biology or anatomy.

I’m having difficulty believing anyone – short of surgical procedures plus hormone treatments – can actually become a different gender. This isn't about appearance; that's easy to accomplish. No, this is about being fully accepted, legally, as a different gender, on your word alone.    

That’s not to minimize the plight of those who feel that, despite the anatomy they were born with, they are in fact more female than male, or more male than female for that matter. I am sure that’s very difficult for them. Yet there’s a profound difference between feeling like one gender or another psychologically and actually being a certain gender physiologically and legally.    

Advocates say this is a civil rights issue – they believe people of virtually any age should be allowed to claim whichever gender they feel they are.  And if they are anatomically male but identify as female, or anatomically female but gender identify as male, they should be accepted by society, and government, and the law, as the gender of their choice. 

By logical extension then, anyone should be allowed  to use bathrooms and locker rooms, to play on whatever teams and compete in whatever sports, based solely on their personal gender choice, not the anatomical and genetic gender they actually are. 

This may sound fair and all about “inclusiveness” to some but ignores the real physiological differences between most males and females that go well beyond genitalia and feelings.

Accepting that gender is merely an intellectual exercise could be devastating to women-only sports and scholarships that are protected under Title IX.  Some males could decide they would win more often and gain more scholarships simply by claiming to self-identify as female. 

Don't dismiss that possibility.

Then there are all the current gender-specific preferences, much like race-based preferences, created by Federal, state and local governments for a wide variety of programs. The good intention of these has always been to provide more opportunities to certain groups considered historically disadvantaged in some way – in short, to level the playing field if possible. 

Those gender-based preferences are based on biology, not self-identification. Until now, it’s been pretty clear: women-owned businesses get preference for government contracts; women-owned businesses help other contractors comply with government contract requirements; and women are entitled to special treatment for loans and start-up assistance from the SBA, just to name a few.

The result is that billions of dollars – both from governments and the corporations that do business with governments as well – flow through to women-owned firms by edict. 

I am not saying this is wrong. Or questioning the validity of these policies.  That’s a different discussion altogether about government picking winners and losers.   

Still, by redefining gender – which it appears some activists are trying to do – to be based on psychology rather than biology or physiology, a new problem is created.  Does a male who claims to self-identify as a female qualify for participation in these women-only programs? 

Who decides?

And is that fair to physiological females competing for the same preferences?   

Personally, I am fundamentally opposed to all artificial preferences by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or whatever. It’s all discrimination no matter how you look at it.  I’d like to see us stop playing games in employment or government aid based on anything other than merit or true financial need.  Putting the fickle fat finger of government on who gets what based entirely on other criteria is a recipe for corruption and fraud. 

Right now, the media and Democrats are obsessed with which bathrooms transgender people should be allowed to use, and that Trump has pushed that decision back to the states. Lost in all this is that there are much bigger implications of self-defined gender identity down the road. 

Democrats and the media see the whole issue of transgender rights as a wedge issue to keep the LGBTQ community on their side, while painting those opposed to allowing people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with as homophobes and bigots. The word “discrimination” keeps surfacing in almost every discussion.   

The reality is that the concept of self-defined gender to gain access to restrooms is baffling to a lot of folks who are neither homophobes nor bigots. Me included. 

How did this become such an important issue?  And why are almost all the “victims” of discrimination reported by the media transgendered children or adolescents?   

More to the point, is there really a point to all this? That’s what has most of us puzzled. 

Why would a transgender female who self identifies as a male prefer to use a men’s restroom in the first place? There’s nothing particularly inspiring or enlightening about a men’s restroom. There are sinks, stalls, urinals, and no small talk; most males spend as little time as possible there, and, trust me, most men’s restrooms are pigsties. Men’s restrooms don’t even have a couch.     

Then there’s the issue of a transgender male who self identifies as a woman preferring to use a women’s rest room. 

While men seeing a woman entering a men’s restroom might be surprised, most of us have seen that before, especially at sporting events when the women’s restroom lines are so long.  However, at the present time, I suspect women seeing a man enter a women’s restroom might be exponentially more freaked out; not because women are homophobes or bigots, but because they are more afraid – warranted or unwarranted in this case – of possible sexual assault.

So how did this gender identity thing become such a big deal – especially since there are maybe at most 300,000 adults in the U.S. (much less than one-tenth of one percent of the population) who may or may not feel they are transgendered?  And even that’s a conditional number; more of a high-side guess by advocacy groups. Still, it’s 300,000 people – maybe.

Advocacy groups won’t even estimate how many kids may or may not be considering themselves transgendered – which is what’s getting most of the media attention now – since kids really don’t have much of a firm gender identity until they are older, and even then aren’t sure. 

I’ll tell you why it’s suddenly become a big deal.

The media and Democrats are running low on “victims” to exploit. When there are openly gay Republicans and conservatives, black and Hispanic Republicans and conservatives, and female Republicans and conservatives, their universe of potential victims to hype is shrinking. That’s very troubling to those who rely on victimology to advance their political agenda.    

Sure, there are the illegal immigrants and the Syrian refugees, but polls show most Americans aren’t in favor of either; the majority of Americans want to cut down on both.  

So the transgendered are their new McGuffin – an elusive, hard to define category – perfect foils for the media and Democrats to wield as a cudgel against their nemesis, conservatives.  Using children and adolescents to make their case is a new low, even for them.   

How disingenuous is this?  Recently, on two separate nights Tucker Carlson interviewed two serious advocates for the transgendered.

He asked both the same question: What are the absolute standards for deciding someone is actually transgendered and the gender they self-identify with is real? 

One blathered on about several psychologists coming up with tests, but when Carlson asked for the science behind it to definitively prove someone was really the alternative gender they chose she had nothing. Carlson then asked if there was any reputable scientist – and offered $1,000 if she could name just one – who would show there was a scientific way to prove someone was really the alternative gender they chose. She said she’d have to get back to him on that.

The other, and more entertaining advocate, maintained that people didn’t have to prove anything to support their claim to be a male or a female – it was enough for them to believe they were to be accepted as the gender of their choice.  When Carlson asked if biology and physiology didn’t matter, the advocate insisted gender identity was a strictly personal choice – not based on biology or physiology – and anyone could be any gender they chose. 

Then, Carlson said, what’s to prevent him from deciding he was now a female to gain access to government preferences for women? The advocate responded that Carlson was being ridiculous. Carlson followed up by asking if he could choose his gender, despite biology and physiology, could he also choose his race – could he, for example, choose to be African-American? 

Well of course not, the advocate replied. You can’t simply change your race just because you want to – race is something you’re born with.   

But apparently you can choose your gender. Who knew? 

The unintended consequences of the media and Democrats’ push for everyone – including government officials at all levels and the people running our schools – to  accept that gender is merely a matter of personal choice, are potentially far more serious than which bathroom someone should be allowed to use.   

There’s an awful lot of money at stake. And there are a lot of well-meant programs designed to help women using gender as the qualification on the proverbial block. 

Don’t count out the probability of people switching gender just to gain an edge.