The purpose of equality is to recognise our common humanity which belongs to the homo sapiens ‘ingroup’, encompassing all-in-all. Within the group we can use Maslow’s hierachy of needs to ascertain the universal character of what it means to be human. The purpose of equality is to recognise these as our common needs, not to deny difference.

That homo sapiens is the same substance is logical, and the process of individuation is the complex development of the person from the moment of conception. At conception, a unique DNA combination was determined, the expression of which over time becomes the wrestle between three factors; nature, nurture and eventually our choices. Logic tells us; that male is human and female is human, that male is not female, and female is not male.

Human beings are not clownfish, neither can they be reduced to existing as a ‘brain in a vat’. Saint Paul writes ‘not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another’ (1 Corinthians 15:39).

Reason and the nature of sexual reproduction tells us that both male and female of the species are required for procreation, yet only a female has the potential and actual ability to give birth. Male and female are sufficiently differentiated physically that one cannot become the other. A human male does not and cannot ever have the potential or actual ability to give birth.

Characteristics that humans share with all living things are; movement, reproduction, sensitivity, growth, respiration, excretion and nutrition. A defect in all but one of those categories would be considered a disability, and yet a female or male who desires to belong to a different group who undergoes medical intervention to support this idea loses the ability to reproduce – a disabling of a fundamental need for human survival. Yes, some people who decide to stop hormonal medication can recover reproductive capability, however the loss of organs is irreversible. This means that this process can never be normalised or considered normal as this would significantly impact the future of human civilisation.

Denying biological sex does not only affect reproductive ability but also increases distress particularly of children who are experiencing increased complexity in language and identity on top of being directed into making life-changing decisions before they are capable of doing so.

As transgender ideology does not adhere either to nature or reason, it is fundamentally irrational. There is no correspondence of truth between the physical or collectively observed reality, or to the language of what it is to be male or female. It is therefore false that a male can claim to be female, though a male is able to live as a female which is a separate matter.

‘In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.’ (Judges 21:25). Law is a necessary good. That there are consequences for harm or abuse is fair in a just society. Human rights in the first instance linked with universal human need bind us in duty to uphold the humanity in the individual as in the many, therefore every law is in some way a removal of individual liberty. St Aquinas tells us ‘all knowledge comes by form’ that as causes can be determined by their effects and potentiality from its act lines are drawn connecting the dots of our understanding. This is fine if you are talking about physics or mathematical equations, yet humans and truth exist also in the dimension of complex systems, where we are less able to establish linear causality to a single source that effects consequences such as an act of violence in the community.

Yet, as humans do not reproduce by cloning, sexual reproduction is the privilege of male and female, it is not a right that binds us in duty to be either male or female it is a birth-right – a condition of being that has the potential and actual ability to procreate. Someone who forsakes their birth-right, has in essence given up said privilege and further with medical intervention the ability also to procreate.

Changing the definition of what it means to be male or female without consent of the group is to destroy the social contract that holds each group together globally as well historically. The significance of this change could lead to the end of single sex spaces, and the resulting injustice would lead to the potential erasure of the inherent beauty of being female or male, which includes being wholly designed for the purpose of creating children who belong to our collective futures.

That ‘children’ which studies show by the age of ten or eleven develop emotional valuations which ‘are learned (…), and are adopted ready-made.’  (From ‘The Nature of Prejudice’ 25th Anniversary Edition, Gordon W. Allport, p45.) are being put on medical pathways is a worldwide scandal, removing organs, inhibiting brain development and normal functioning that facilitates human drives for healthy and flourishing futures.

This diagram is taken from Daniel Kahneman’s book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow, Fig 5. Causes and consequences of cognitive ease’. The diagram misses the underlying desires that drive us to act in the first place, drives which include: survival, status, reproduction, food, and pleasure.

Status, I suggest in the context of this discussion, involves the idea of love and belonging, a basic human need, rather than that of money, fame, and influence. Status which is related to our self-concept of attractiveness and belonging to the place in which we are.

Lived experience is in itself a complex system, an interplay of all the causes and consequences happening together within an individual. As a complex system we hold within and collect from without many fragments of linear truths yet remain unaware of the absolute truth. This by nature of the way knowledge is revealed to our attention drawn through a limited mind capture of external and internal references then held within the boundedness of habitual thoughts and memory. The mind then is rather like a filter within a filter, it sorts, processes, and ranks what it has learned to be the highest priorities. Therefore, I will discuss repeated experience as that which is inescapable to the individual which is the body.

During adolescence, the appearance of secondary sex characteristics such as increased body, or pubic hair and breast development or penile erections are a normal part of the experience and recognised at times as distressing or a source of embarrassment or shame depending on individuals’ inferences and evaluation that are either adaptive or maladaptive. Bodies are beautiful, yet too often the collective consciousness has been bombarded with narratives that fix our gaze outwardly to appearances and conformity to high status ideals at every moment rather than to a holistic view of what it means to be human and healthy.

Genuine disconnection between what is believed ought to be rather than what is, such as in body dysmorphia, have been addressed successfully through cognitive behaviour therapy. It is vital that adolescents have the opportunity to ask questions and have a source of support which has long been the role of parents in the first instance, and also to have peers to be able to talk about and relate with body changes and feelings.

‘Attachment related cognitive representations influence the interpretations adolescents make about their interactions with significant others.’ (Justin D. Smith, Deborah P. Welsh, and Paula J. Fite, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322111/ ,2009).

Mirroring or imitation will also develop individual schemas through explorations and interactions whether consciously or not to ascertain if their needs will be met and habits will “reflect the influence of ingroup memberships,” which act “upon the development of the individual personality” – Allport, 1954/1979, p.41.

It is entirely possible that in some instances body dysmorphia has been mischaracterised as gender dysphoria because the individual is also questioning their sexual attraction as well as globally rating their own attractiveness and position within the ingroup to which they belong. The self-concept or ego throughout these changes would have a tendency towards understanding the meaning of self in relation to others – this is comparative in nature and also in itself multi-factorial therefore concealing direct causation of the consequences as they are presented. Professor Scott E. Page suggests ‘an actor in a complex system controls almost nothing but influences almost everything.’

Studies by Piaget and Weil show by the age of ten or eleven children develop emotional valuations which ‘are learned (…), and are adopted ready-made.’ From ‘The Nature of Prejudice’ 25th Anniversary Edition, Gordon W. Allport, p45. Allport also noted, emotions act “like sponges. Ideas, engulfed by an overpowering emotion, are more likely to conform to the emotion than to objective evidence” (1954/1979, p.22)

Society will attribute an unconscious hierarchy to individuals through status. High status women for example in today’s society would have a high degree of fitness, be young-looking, slim, smooth skinned, and extrovert. This evaluation echoes from the celebrity all the way down to peers who closely match this perceived level of status of attractiveness and social acceptance. High status confers high value and feelings of self-worth. Internalised negativity towards a self-concept that rates itself low status would manifest potentially as hypervigilance and increased probability bias towards rejecting what is because of what ought to be, fostering the idea that needs would be unmet as they are. Thus, for women who do not recognise themselves as belonging to this high-status group and believe themselves likely to fail, adopting a different identity would differentiate them, potentially attracting a greater status that is more in keeping with perceived value. This would be observable not just in societal norms but also between siblings that are close in age or identical.

What may develop during individuation and the process of the developing self-identity is prejudicial attitudes towards the ingroup characteristics that are perceived as too narrow to embrace them, therefore a widening of acceptable characteristics of the female group to include, for example, socially acceptable hairiness so as not to devalue this in relation to the identity of being a woman would support wellbeing.

Female preferences for expression of identity do not change the group to which they belong, it is therefore important that a woman can have the opposite of high-status characteristics yet remain of high value. This requires a shift in collective consciousness and its archetypes. Self-value is determined by the meaning derived from the quality of attachments to peers and romantic partners. So though medical intervention reduces reproductive ability, this counterintuitively is a mechanism for improved sense of belonging and self-esteem in relation to maladaptive beliefs. It could be seen as a way to increase the selection pool of potential mates, which despite the method being irrational is in itself is a survival instinct.

A society that is able to remove a value hierarchy between masculine females and feminine females, and feminine males and masculine males would contribute to reducing the effect of collective archetypes and / or stereotypes.

If objective beauty is found in our unconscious recognition of the continuity of all things, the belonging to the universal language of love in spirals, fractals, movement and change – to our experience of time in the seasons within every beat of our hearts. Subjective beauty is then the unconscious recognition of the familiar developed [from birth] within us – the preferences drawn from the uniqueness of our individual nature and experiences.

It is love that terrifies and invites us into uncertainty, vulnerability and surrender to all that is other. The movement of love is not to find the outward manifestation of the self, it is not to discover myself, but to discover them, and through this encounter I become known through them as they are known through me. The journey is one of continual encounter and discovery, a process that remains a continuous stream of moments joined together through our life.

A person is sacred, a person is a soul. If we hold concepts or feelings in the mind apart from our physical nature solely as the total of our reality, then imagination has become our ruler and our hearts have become like stones.

Our freedom is being able to self-direct at will a meeting of our needs, the physical needs being the most fundamental. The soul requires self-actuality which counterintuitively is not for ourselves but as with love it is for others. The change point between self and other is relationship, the relation like a bridge of connection between two points. The mind, heart, body and soul, the wholeness of our being flourishes in relationship. The goal then of intervention when there is distress is to support relations of the individual – firstly of restoring the self with self for the purpose of the self with other.

Where gender dysphoria is the result of abnormal brain development in relation to gonadal development then removing otherwise functioning organs, that results in limiting an individual’s life choices, should remain an immoral treatment pathway. Removal of organs is akin to mirror therapy whereby the brain is fooled into a belief that is in reality false. Where lifelong treatment is considered necessary for any physical impairment of normal human development, this should be considered a disability.

~~~

A person is a journey through time, therefore an action in a moment is not to become a global rating of the whole. This in no way suggests that a consequence for an unlawful act should not be for example long-term imprisonment, yet even then a person is to be afforded a human dignity whether they have shown repentance or not – how we treat others is not about what is in them, but instead what is coming out of us (Matthew 15:11). Our words, our thoughts, and deeds they are all written upon our soul.

Matthew 16:26 ‘For what good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?’

As Christians we are called to one thing – to love! Therefore, we must do it -love in all circumstances and all people. Was it us who set the limits of matter, time, and space? Were not all things created in and through Jesus Christ? So, when our mind speaks of value judgements by clothes and appearances, we must wrestle it to the ground, and submit ourselves to God who has told us time and time again that He does not see as we see and that He is Himself love.

Amen.