“Brain sex” is a faulty claim of transgender doctrine

Charlie Rae tackles some of the issues with the claim coming from transgender doctrine that people have a ‘brain sex’.

Here I have deconstructed the arguments that believers in the gender doctrine use, which tell us that transpeople have ‘opposite-sexed-brains’. Often when this topic comes up, transgender ideologists present neurological studies which corroborate that various brain trends exist, which causes us to focus on the science of brains (which is remarkably complicated, especially for the average person) and bypass the basic premise that we are being asked to accept.

The truth is, we’re not being asked to accept that women’s and men’s brains perform or function differently. We are being asked to accept that the marker to determine the sex of the brain is adherence to gender roles. We are told that this then determines the sex of our whole body; which is to claim that gender is innate, or hard-wired, and automatically overrides bodily sex and replaces it.

The pre-existing bias they are building their theory on is that only a female brain could adapt the feminine gender role, even given that it’s been forced on females–clothing, sexualization, subordination, makeup, etc. They are claiming that this affinity for the feminine gender role is what makes one’s brain female, and so we can use this to categorize our bodies. Because of this, the science they are presenting on brain sex is, in and of itself, an attempt to falsely categorize brains. We are told that if we do not adhere to this new and less-useful method of categorization, we are bigots–we are not permitted under this doctrine to say that liking the feminine gender role does not make transwomen women.

Imagine, for a moment, we were being told to look for ‘black brains’ in white bodies because some white people like watermelon or rap music. The premise is certainly faulty. We don’t look for what makes someone black in their brains based on stereotypes that have been forced onto black people; we look at skin color because that’s what being black is. When we look at sex, you could look at a myriad of characteristics, and brains simply exist within these bodies.

‘Sex is a social construct’ mixed with ‘feelings determine gender’ leave us with a system that uses biology (brain function) willy-nilly, and justifies this with science that is looking to see if kids have ‘girl-brains’ because they have an affinity for barbie dolls and the color pink. Then, when results confirm this, we’re told this is ‘evidence’ which reaffirms their faulty premise: that the expression of one’s behaviors within a rigid ‘gender-binary’ are the thing determines the sex of the brain, and because of this, the body. In reality, brains are mosaic and sex chromosomes are unchangeable.

We have seen this doctrine manifest riffs which cause othering and even hostility toward women and men who reject their gender role but know their biological sex. Gender non-conforming women do not self-identify as ‘cis’ (a woman who identifies with the female gender role). They are stuck in the newly created trans-cis binary that women can’t get out of, and who are sometimes ultimately told they are agender, and therefore have no claim to womanhood. There is no new catchy identity in this ideology for men or women who reject their imposed gender role. People who are not confused about their sex are sometimes called ‘afab’ or ‘amab’, which expresses that female and male are not something they are allowed to simply be: they were only “assigned such as birth” which invalidates their sex. Transgender ideologists have also accused butch lesbians of being ‘self-hating trans men’, which I have also been accused of after revealing that I grew up with gender dysphoria. Further, this is why there are transwomen and transactivists who say drag queens are ‘appropriating transwomanhood’, rather than accepting gender non-conformity in the LGBT community (as they claim to do).

This inner-feelings-create-reality approach within the gender doctrine allows those who believe this to tell others who they are according to how they present, because to not do so would be to break the gender doctrine. These rigid gender roles–feminine and masculine–must exist in order for transgenderism to exist, so they ‘police’ the ‘gates’ of expression, confronting all women who reject the feminine gender role, leaving them to ponder: am I really a man? If women want to reject the ‘feminine gender role’, they must have male brains, right? I mean, that’s what happens when we accept that which gender role you ‘experiment’ with or ‘present’ tells us what’s in your brain, and further, what your body is.

I think we should notice also, that even though we are being told that sex is a social construct by those who profess the gender doctrine, this standard is dropped as soon as studies of the brain corroborates their beliefs–which are based on an illogical premise. As Sam Reitger put it,

“Transgender ideologists would have us believe that biology is a social construct when it comes to the observational differences between males and females. Yet, they would also have us believe that biology is a very real system of categorizing males and females when it comes to the brain structures which allegedly prove that gender stereotypes are innate. They’re essentially setting up a system where they can arbitrarily switch the metric for evaluating the truth or falsity of their claims, effectively erasing our ability evaluate them objectively.”

Due to the metric being switched at every turn, we don’t evaluate the premises, and we don’t question the logic. How does a female brain get into a male body? Why should liking the feminine gender role

 override and erase everything we know about sexed bodies? Why is anyone using the function or affinities of the brain to re-frame what they really ought to be or are, and to demand others to categorize them this way? Is this even a useful method of categorization, when others not knowing your sex can cause serious bodily harm?

Why would liking barbie dolls as a kid be a better system of categorization of our bodies than…our actual bodies? 

As this is being swiftly pushed into legislation and public policy, we have a duty to question what we’re being asked to accept and adopt. Inner feelings do not in fact determine our reality, regardless of how many people insist this. And the premise that sex doesn’t actually exist–except in the brain (conveniently categorized by expression)–is being used to tell us that females, and thus sexism, does not exist, and we are the ‘cissexist’ ones. (Read: reverse sexist).

Charlie Rae takes on the gender doctrine over at The Fem Column.