Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team
Tomas Bogardus describes in his publication Why the trans inclusion problem cannot be solved (2022) details why there can be no trans-inclusive notion of gender, at least not under the conditions prescribed by recent gender theory à la Bettcher, Jenkins, Barnes, Dembroff and others.
These conditions are what we call co-essentialist: they are based on the idea that if a person says himself or herself that he or she is a man, woman or non-binary, then that is true regardless of biological sex. According to Bogardus, this is a vacuous because circular theory.
In AGTRT-1, we argue that while Tomas Bogardus’ argument is plausible, it is not yet 100% conclusive. In AGTRT-13, we put on the table that a co-essentialist view of transgendering (as propagated by GLAAD and Stonewall, for example) actually hinges on taking for granted what we call the gender orientation hypothesis .
This hypothesis states that there is a gender orientation (with choice between male, female, and neutral), just as there is a sexual orientation (usually seen with choice between male and female as (gender of the) subjects of attraction and affection most desired by a person). We also state in AGTRT-13 that, to our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to support the gender orientation hypothesis.
In AGTRT-M1, we describe counteressentialism (abbreviated to co-essentialism, possibly also read as complementary idealism) as the idea that gender is completely independent of biological factors. Essentialism is precisely the view that gender depends 100% on biological factors.
Co-essentialism as espoused by GLAAD and Stonewall is an even more far-reaching theory, namely that gender (we call it gender orientation) is a fact that a person perceives in himself through (gender) self-identification. A person’s gender pronouns (pronouns) are thus also not a choice or preference but “fact.” That there would be such a deeper factuality we understand as the gender orientation hypothesis: the existence of a gender orientation.
Because of the hypothetical nature of this hypothesis, we believe it lacks a scientific basis. These arguments are consistent with the observations of Tomas Bogardus but also show where Bogardus may be missing a stitch. If the gender orientation hypothesis does turn out to be true (similar to the situation with sexual orientation) then Bogardus’ argument is still not compelling.
At present, we believe that little argues in favor of the gender orientation hypothesis so we see it as a scientifically reasonable assumption to assume that this hypothesis fails. Then (in accordance with Bogardus) there is also no transinclusive notion of gender to be designed (via whatever feminist-tinged concept engineering).
This raises the question: how is it that trans activists believe they can dictate to the world a trans-inclusive notion of gender? We can only note that transactivists have little interest in seeking a conclusive theory of gender that can justify their positions.
What complicates matters is that Tomas Bogardus’ position (in Bogardus 2022), we believe, can indeed be described as trans-friendly. Putting people away as transphobic also targets people who are indeed trans-friendly, but who adhere to a narrower definition of transgender.
We see Stonewall’s slogan, “Transwomen are also women, get over it!” as tenable and meaningful. But Stonewall fails to mention in that slogan that they have in mind a much broader definition of transgender than was common until recently.
Read more about how trans-friendly positions are dismissed as transphobic:
Comment on Bracke & Paternotte (2018): the pot calling the kettle black
In AGTRT-12, we distinguish between bio-transgender and psycho-transgender. Many (including, as far as we can see, Tomas Bogardus) have no problem with bio-transgendering in principle, but do have a problem with psycho-transgendering. With such a view, one is indeed trans-friendly and therefore not transphobic.
So what Stonewall is doing is negatively dismissing trans people as transphobic and that, as argued above, in the absence of decisive scientific evidence.
Leave a Reply