Written by Jay Lucci
There is a far too large number of people that use the argument ‘not identifying with your assigned gender at birth is unnatural and morally worng.’ This argument is often somehow used by politicians (all be it they are conservatives so we cant be surprised) at the highest level of governemnt. Below using that often used argument of ‘unnatural’ and not bilogically right I can debunk the myth that you have a natural and bilogically assigned gender.
It’s all about culture, our culture argues that it forbids only which is unnatural. But from a bilogical standpoint, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible by defintion is natural. An unnatural act is something that goes against the laws of nature, such as myself going for a morning run and outpacing the speed of light which is simply not possiblie. No culture has ever banned women to defy gravity or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.
Our definitions of natural and unnatural actually derive from Christian theology, NOT biology. The theologial definition of natural is ‘in accordance with the intenetions of the God who created nature’. Christian theologians will argue that their God created the human body, every limb and every organ to peform a specific purpose. If we use our limbs for the purpose intended by God, then it is a natural thing, to use them in any other way is unnatural. However evolution has no purpose, organs have not eveoled with any purpose and the way they are used is in constant change. There isn’t an organ in the human body that still only does thh job its prototype did millions of years ago. Organs evolve to peform a certain function, but once they are there they can be used for many usages. Mouths for example first appeared because organisms needed a way to take nutrients into their bodies. Our mouths are still used for that purpose but now we also use them to speak, kiss and many other things. Are these uses unnatural just because some organism that existed 200 million years ago did not use them for these purposes? Of course not.
There is liittle point, then, in arguing that the natural function of a women is to give birth, or that homosexuality is unnatural. Our laws, rights and obligations that define man and womanhood derive from human imagination and culture rather than biology.
Biologically human beings are seperated into males and females, a male posseses XY chromosomes and a woman posseses XX chromosomes. But ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are social, not biological categories. In almost all 21st century cultures males are men and females are women. In our societies these social terms carry a lot of baggage have no relation to the biologocal terms. A man is not a human with XY chromosomes, testicles and high testestorone levels. Instead he fits into an imagined order, his cultures myths assign him masucline rolls such as a career in engineering, engaging in football and duties such as military service. The same applies to women, society assigns females with unique feminine rolls such as raising children protection from violence in most cases and duties such as obedience to her husband. Since myths which vary vastly from culture to culture define the duties of men and women rather than biology which is much more rigid are defintiions of womanhood and mahood change hugely from one society to another.
I understand culture is deeply implemented and important but many of you reading this will come from a position and society were what I have explained is common knowledge to many of you and well educated people around you, in these societies such as mine and yours I think that eliminating the idea of assigned genders and roles for us is a necessary step to a more just society that will reduce suffering. But the fact that cultural myths cannot be ignored will be an interesting and inevitable barrier taht will unfold in the coming years.