Fact: There Are Only Two Genders.
By: Philip Gregory
Tags: Transgender, Homosexuality, Gender Identity, Gender Equality, Gender Roles

I identify as a unicorn.

I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are only two genders. It’s mind boggling that such a thing needs to be said, but here we are, in 2020. Still, it’s expected. Humans often confuse the conceptual and ideological with the factual and practical. We have fantastic imaginations, and we tend to believe that anything imagined must also be true. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I can imagine a flying purple unicorn that shoots laser beams out of its eyes named Theodore, but that doesn’t mean that Theodore exists. I can imagine a world where I am who I am but also simultaneously who I am not, but I’m still who I am, and not what I’m not. I can say that I am neither a “she” nor a “he”, but in the end, the only pronoun that correctly describes me is “he”. Let’s face it: I was born with a penis. I’m a man. If I decide to call myself a woman, it doesn’t change the fact that I am male.

If I decide tomorrow to start calling myself Thelma, it doesn’t change my chromosomes. Even after gender “reassignment” surgery, I’d still just be a guy who had his bits rearranged. My imagined sexual identity does not erase my biological sex. That may be uncomfortable for some, but it is an objective and scientific fact. In order to escape this, new words are now being invented to re-define a delusion, in an attempt to make that delusion seem more logical. Words like “non-binary”, “transgender”, “gender neutral” are increasingly common. We are now being told to use new pronouns: Zie, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, E, among others. These are words that are simply made up, and they describe a fantasy; a biological impossibility. That’s all fine, I suppose. If a man wants to call himself a purple fluffletoad, he certainly has the right to do so, but what does it say when we not only allow but encourage beliefs that directly contradict biological facts?

Proponents of these ludicrous “words” will say that the entire point of the “transgender” movement is to realize that, sometimes, a person’s identity does not conform to their biological sex. That may be true, but saying that one’s identity contradicts one’s biology is logically equivalent to saying that one’s belief contradicts reality. We’re now being told to accept these erroneous beliefs, or else. Why should we do that? Where else in life do we accept incorrect beliefs to this extent? If someone decides to self-identify as a toad, are we not allowed to correct them? Apparently not. It seems that sexuality is following in the footsteps of religion, where anything at all can be made up and believed, but nothing at all can be questioned — lest someone get offended. Well I’m sorry, but, if a person is born with XY chromosomes, that’s a man. Why do I say that? Because factually baseless beliefs, unsupported by evidence, are not useful for rational decisions. I prefer rational decisions. Most people do, yet, they abandon critical thinking when it comes to this specific topic. We normally feel justified in correcting bad beliefs, but when someone’s sexuality or religion comes into play, we feel we can’t speak up. Why is that? Why do we care so much if someone is offended by the truth?

Look, I don’t mind calling a transgender man “she”, if that’s the pronoun he prefers. He’s dressing like a woman. He says he is a woman. Fine, I’ll say “she”. I certainly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but this nonsense about “non-binary” is physically and logically impossible. Let me just make this clear for those who didn’t take biology 101: there are only two genders. If you imagine there are twenty, there are still only two. If you imagine six billion, there are still only two. The sexes are, at least in regard to homo sapiens, binary. That’s just a biological fact. What we imagine has no bearing on the facts.

I support any person’s sexual preference. What someone does in their own bedroom, with their own clothes, with their own bodies, or with their own identity is none of my affair. I’m happy to call someone by either one of the logical pronouns already included in the English language. Tell me which one you prefer, and I’ll use that one. What I don’t understand is why transgender or “non-binary” people think they can force us to use made up words that refer to made up concepts. I also don’t understand why institutions are forcing people to conform to this nonsense, and thereby limiting their freedom of speech. It’s sickening to see universities, for example, whose purpose is to impart knowledge based on logical principles, evidence, and scientific methodologies, telling students to abandon critical thinking and evidence. Worse, some institutions are trying to force people to use these imaginary pronouns. This flies in the face of intellectual integrity, and threatens the right to free speech. It’s disturbing to see those charged with protecting rationality so easily abandon it in the face of an illogical trend. More than disturbing, these demands, from a linguistic standpoint, are exercises in futility.

Language only functions so long as it is holistically useful. That means that words need to be understood by the majority of the speakers of that language. We don’t traditionally (and shouldn’t) adjust our language for the sake of a small minority of speakers. If a word is to be successful or impart any meaning it all, it needs to spread to the point that every speaker understands it and accepts it. That process cannot begin until there is an event or catalyst that makes change necessary. This is why languages tend to evolve slowly over time, rather than drastically or suddenly. Moreover, a word must map to some fact of reality in order for it to serve any purpose at all. If I make up a word right now, and that word fails to map to some fact of reality, then the word has no meaning.

If I say the word “cup”, however, everyone understands what I mean, because this established word maps to a fact of reality: the thing from which we drink. Sure, we could change “cup” to “noodlefroth”, and “noodlefroth” could map to reality just as well, but only after nearly every speaker of the language had accepted this new descriptor and accepted its meaning. In the case of “noodlefroth”, why would they accept the new meaning? There’s no reason to do so. People tend to accept the descriptors that are the simplest, and “noodlefroth” is certainly more complex than “cup”. Moreover, people only accept the descriptors that are in some way better ore more useful than previously known descriptors. Much like biological evolution, language only evolves when a sufficient external force is applied or some necessary condition is met, and the surviving words only survive if they are linguistically “fit”. None of the recently created words regarding gender satisfy any of these requirements.

We have no reason to invent new pronouns, because we already have two pronouns that map perfectly to the only two biological genders. The invented pronouns are therefore unfit. If anything, they create confusion, because they map to a subjective concept rather than an objective fact. Moreover, ideology is the only reason they exist: there are no external forces or linguistic pressures requiring their creation. This is because they are redundant; we already have working descriptors. Since there are only two sexes, any descriptors above and beyond “he” or “she” are meaningless. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would disagree with these conclusions. I must assume that if someone did, that person would either be incapable of delineating between concepts and facts, or they would be operating with an ulterior (and probably emotional) motive - or both.

My flying purple unicorn named Theodore does not exist, except in my mind. No matter how vividly I see him inside my head, no matter how real he feels to me, he is not a fact of reality. Facts of reality are things that we can test by hypotheses, theory, and demonstration. The fact that anyone is confused about this speaks volumes about the intellectual state of those confused. It’s scary, really, because it means that we have slid so far intellectually that we are on the verge of accepting any idea without the least bit of criticism. We also seem to be afraid to correct erroneous conclusions. That’s a mistake. Bad ideas need to be criticized. If I start telling you that my name is Theodore and that I identify as a unicorn, you need to correct me. If you won’t correct me, then at least refuse to be bullied by me.

As I said before, I am happy to use the pronouns “she” and “he” in whatever way someone requests I that use them. I’m an accepting person who supports LGBT rights. I don’t think it’s right, however, to demand (as some are doing) that I use the imaginary words someone else created — words that have no meaning and map to no facts of reality — just because they say I should. No one should be forced to share a delusion against their will, especially if the facts plainly point to the erroneous nature of the delusion. No one should lose their freedom of speech just because a very small percentage of the population says they should. No one should have their language and pronouns policed because of an illogical zeitgeist. Certainly no one should be punished by police, universities, or other institutions, for refusing to follow an irrational trend. In short, people are welcome to whatever delusion they like, but they shouldn’t be forcing others to share that delusion.

The facts matter, and these are the facts: if you were born with an XY chromosome, a penis, and testicles, you are a male. If you were born with XX chromosomes and a vagina, you are a female. If a male dresses up like a woman and has sex with a man, he’s a gay man, even if he really, truly, legitimately feels that he is a woman. The same can be said for the opposite sex. These are not insults; these are statements of fact. I can certainly keep those facts to myself — I don’t want to offend— but if I’m going to give you that courtesy, then at least allow me to use the English language in the only way that makes any rational sense.