Inborn transgenderism is impossible

A linguistic approach


In this article I will explain why the notion of being born transgender makes fundamentally no sense from a linguistic perspective, where being born “transgender” is defined as having a strong inclination to verbalize and insist that one really is a member of the opposite sex regardless of one’s observable sexual anatomy. After having explained this, I will slightly go into depth on the mentality of those supporting the notion of inborn transgenderism.

This is important because a frequent claim by proponents of the inborn transgenderism theory is that a young child which is “born transgender” will instinctively verbalize its “true sex” at some point. It is of crucial importance to understand whether this reflects an inborn fact about the child, or whether it’s the result of social influence.

This analysis does not apply to the physical feelings associated with gender dysphoria, such as a male’s hatred of his penis or a female’s hatred of her breasts. More generally, it does not apply to cases of “I wish I were the opposite sex.” I do not think such cases are the inevitable results of inborn conditions either, but that is a separate topic. The current article is only concerned with the phenomenon of insistence that one is a member of the opposite sex in spite of observable sexual anatomy.

Words are learned

Humans possess no instinctive knowledge of words.

A word, whether conveyed through sound, text, gestures, or otherwise, is the encapsulation of a certain thought into brief, transmittable form. Said thought could be, for instance, a simple reflection of an objective reality that can be individually observed by any healthy mind, such as a solid chunk of minerals lying on the ground which English people decided to call “rock”; or it could be a complex thought with many connections to, and implications of, other thoughts, perhaps wrong thoughts, such as: genetic blending through interracial marriage, which some white supremacists have deemed wrong and called “miscegenation.”

Simple or complex, objective truth or political ideal, all words are learned; no child is born knowing that a cat is called a cat, or that post-structuralism is called post-structuralism.

Girls and boys

As with all words, the words in English or any other language which refer to the sexes first have to be learned before being able to be used.

When a “transgender child” verbalizes that it is a girl or is a boy, proponents of the inborn transgenderism theory say that this reflects a certain inner truth about the child that is (presumably) universal across all physically male children who verbalize to be girls, and universal across all female children who verbalize to be boys, as if all such children are born with an innate knowledge of the words “girl” and “boy” — an innate knowledge that says “girl” means whatever inner truth the “trans girls” feel, and an innate knowledge that says “boy” means whatever inner truth the “trans boys” feel.

But no such innate knowledge exists. As such, it is impossible for a child to be born transgender in this sense.


Just what do the children mean?

Proponents of the theory leave out the crucial question of: what precise thought does the child try to convey when it insists that it is a girl or is a boy? Evidently, the child is not talking about the facts of biological sex we all know about; otherwise the child would easily realize that it is wrong, by looking at its genitals. So what definition of the word “girl” or “boy” is the child actually using? How did the child come to use these words for the particular thought it’s trying to convey? Could the child’s use of these words possibly be tied to certain wrong thoughts, such as “only girls like dresses” or “only boys like football”? These are very easy mistakes for a child to make.

Indeed one would expect anyone with a basic feminist consciousness to raise children such that they do not associate the words “girl” and “boy” with much more than mere facts of biological sex. Girls have a vulva, boys have a penis, everything else is nonsense that stupid adults want to brainwash you with! (This is vastly simplified, of course. More precise facts of biological sex can be taught as the child grows older.) But we do not see this from proponents of the inborn transgenderism theory. They refuse to apply any critical thinking and scrutiny to the phenomenon of a physically male child verbalizing to be a girl or a physically female child verbalizing to be a boy. Sometimes they even seem to endorse sex stereotypes.

What if?..

Being charitable towards proponents of the inborn transgenderism theory, I try to imagine whether a solution could be found to this dilemma of theirs. The best thing that I can think of is: what if there is an objectively observable set of traits naturally associated with children with a vulva (who we are taught to call “girls”), and another objectively observable set of traits naturally associated with children with a penis (who we are taught to call “boys”), and some children are smart enough to catch on to these traits, therefore beginning to associate the words “girl” and “boy” with said traits? Then, noticing themselves to have the traits of the opposite biological sex, they might start verbalizing the idea that they are of that sex, thinking that genitals are a less important aspect of the definitions of “girl” and “boy” than those traits they observed. (We are talking about traits that don’t relate to anatomy, such as personality traits, so a child could have them regardless of its biological sex.)

This requires no innate knowledge of words. It only requires observation of natural facts. As such, transgenderism could be “almost inborn” in the sense that a child that is born with certain genetic personality traits is strongly naturally predisposed to verbalize, at some point, the notion of being a member of the opposite sex.

So, dilemma solved?

Well, if you’re particularly smart, I’m sure you’ve already noticed that this logic has some grave issues. Firstly, the traits that are allegedly naturally associated with the sexes sound all too similar to conservative sex stereotypes; we cannot really be sure whether the child was not influenced by a sexist society.

Secondly, and let’s assume for a moment that the sexes really do have certain personality traits statistically associated with them, ask yourself the following question:

Is it more progressive to validate a child’s idea that society is split into two personality types / social identities (plus a few exceptional “non-binary” ones), or is it more progressive to teach the child that while society is split into two types of external anatomy (plus a few exceptional intersex cases), this anatomy has no bearing on one’s social identity, because every person’s personality falls on a unique spot on a fluid and infinitely vast spectrum?

The occurrence of all sorts of “non-binary” and “genderfluid” identities already seems like a manifestation of the failures of the “binary personality system.” Why not just let go of these strange categorizations of social identity, and admit that everyone falls somewhere on a big ass spectrum that has as many points on it as people on Earth? Aren’t you “policing the boundaries of gender” otherwise, as you keep accusing radical feminists of doing?

The only thing that is relatively binary is, in the end, our sexual anatomy, and that should have no bearing on what personality we are expected to show, and what social identity we are allowed to take on.


Do send me a comment if you think you can solve the dilemma explained above without having to resort to a “personality categorization” like I did in my own attempt to solve it.