January 2025
Publication Date: 2025-03-06
There is a great deal of confusion in the debate concerning gay, lesbian and trans rights. In particular, the distinct concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity are sometimes conflated. It is important to define our terms properly and make the necessary distinctions.
Cet article est disponible en français.
There is a great deal of confusion in the debate concerning gay, lesbian and trans rights, so much so that one might suspect a deliberate attempt to foment and inflame it. There is confusion about the definition of biological sex. There is confusion between the two distinct meanings of the word “sex”—i.e. either an attribute of the individual or an act of sexual intercourse. There is confusion between rights and privileges. There is even an apparent difficulty in defining the terms “woman” and “man.” In addition, some often conflate sex (an immutable biological attribute) and gender (referring to the roles that each sex can normally take, roles that vary enormously depending on the era and culture, and are therefore highly variable). Gender may justifiably be considered a social construct but sex, on the other hand, is a reality well imbedded in biological science.
Much confusion also stems from the conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity, an ambiguity that is manifested, for example, in the acronym LGBTQ and its variants with additional letters. At the risk of complicating things even further, let us note that this “gender identity” should instead be called “sexual identity,” but the first expression has been imposed as a result of the conflation of sex and gender.
Sexual orientation is simply the sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex (heterosexual orientation) or the same sex (homosexual orientation). When this orientation is expressed, it becomes objectively observable in the sexual behavior of the individual. There is also bisexuality, where the person is attracted to people of either sex, as well as asexuality, where the person feels no attraction.
Gender identity (or sexual identity) is more difficult to define because it is an entirely personal feeling, with no objective expression.
Gender identity (or sexual identity) is more difficult to define because it is an entirely personal feeling, with no objective expression. It is the individual’s feeling of belonging to one or the other of the two sexes (or to one of an infinity of “genders”), regardless of his or her objective biological sex. If gender identity and biological sex differ, if the individual feels “in the wrong body,” this discrepancy is referred to as gender dysphoria. This phenomenon is purely subjective, a psychological syndrome. Gender dysphoria is defined as “A profound and persistent unhappiness caused by having characteristics […] of, or being perceived as, a gender different from one’s gender identity.” Note also that the expression “gender incongruence” is sometimes used to describe a similar phenomenon.
Sexual orientation is therefore a matter of sexual partner (actual or desired), where the word “sexual” refers to the sexual act, while gender identity is the individual’s feeling of belonging to a particular gender (or sex), a personal feeling of the individual, which may or may not correspond to that individual’s biological sex.
Biological Sex
For the above definitions to be coherent, we must first have a clear definition of biological sex. If we define sex according to the type of gametes an individual can (potentially) produce, then there are two biological sexes: the female sex which produces large gametes (eggs) and the male sex which produces small gametes (spermatozoa or sperm).
Biological sex is strictly binary. There are only two sexes…
Biological sex is strictly binary. There are only two sexes, even though there are rare individuals—known as “intersex” persons—who may present physical attributes which are not typical of either sex. Intersex persons do not represent a third sex, but rather constitute a developmental anomaly of individuals belonging to one or the other of the two sexes. At any rate, an individual who identifies as trans, affected by gender dysphoria and who thus expresses the desire to change sex, implicitly recognizes belonging to one sex, with a desire to adopt the other. Also, while being intersex is a physical state which may require medical intervention, being trans is a psychological state linked to discomfort with one’s sex. Intersex persons are not trans and must be treated on a case-by-case basis given their rarity and uniqueness.
Furthermore, despite the claims of some activists and philosophers who choose to ignore scientific reality, it is impossible for a human being to change sex. An individual’s sex is established at conception and is present in every cell of the body. A baby’s sex is not “assigned at birth” but observed and recorded. Therefore, any “sex reassignment,” through powerful drugs or surgeries, can only be cosmetic and superficial.
When we talk about LGBT rights, the situation is very different for the LGB group (lesbian, gay and bisexual) and the T group (trans, i.e. those with gender dysphoria). Both groups share a common concern: protection against discrimination in employment, housing, etc. But beyond that issue, the two diverge greatly. The first group consists of people with homosexual behaviour, and it is enough that they have the freedom to live their lives without being discriminated against based on anti-homosexual prejudices, and that same-sex couples be recognized. But in the second group, trans people, the situation is completely different because there is the desire to change sex, which can involve major, invasive and radical medical interventions.
Valid or Invalid Diagnosis?
My intent here is certainly not to deny the very existence of gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon. There are individuals who are very uncomfortable with their biological sex from a very young age. They apparently have a deep desire to change their sex, even though such a change is in reality impossible, and this desire is not fleeting. I am neither a doctor nor a psychologist, so I obviously cannot claim to be able to make diagnoses, that is, to identify true cases of gender dysphoria. However, there are at least two particular situations where the strong possibility of a false diagnosis is obvious and easy to recognize.
Firstly, there is the situation where the individual declares himself (or herself) to be of the opposite sex, sometimes suddenly, in order to claim certain privileges or advantages. Examples of this phenomenon are numerous, and in the vast majority of cases, if not all, the individual is a man who claims to be a woman, that is to say, he is a “trans-woman” or “trans-feminized”. These may be men seeking access to spaces reserved for women for reasons of voyeurism or to benefit from less rigorous conditions in a women’s prison. They may also be men wanting to participate in women’s sports competitions where the male individual enjoys a major innate athletic advantage.
Secondly, there is the situation where the individual, often an adolescent boy or girl on the brink of puberty, discovers homosexual feelings but lives in a rather homophobic environment. This situation is probably more difficult for a girl than for a boy, because the girl finds herself the target of insistent and unwanted sexual attention from the boys in her environment; this discomfort is in addition to the distress she already feels because of her milieu’s disapproval of homosexuality. There are also cases of young girls, at the threshold of puberty, who do not want to have menstrual periods or breasts. If this girl became a boy, these problems would disappear. She may therefore see sexual reassignment as a solution.
Studies have shown that if these adolescents are monitored as they mature into adulthood without transitioning, the dysphoria often resolves itself and a high proportion of these individuals become homosexual adults.
But it is no solution at all. Studies have shown that if these adolescents are monitored as they mature into adulthood without transitioning, the dysphoria often resolves itself and a high proportion of these individuals become homosexual adults. For example, Dr. James M. Cantor, a specialist in sexual behavior, has compiled a list of studies showing a resolution rate of such psychological issues between 60% and 90% without the need for transition.
Each case is unique. But overall, most cases of gender dysphoria that fit into one or the other of the two scenarios described above must be considered false diagnoses. These scenarios are the inevitable result of the obviously false ideology that claims that changing biological sex is possible and can be done in response to a sincere, profound feeling. Furthermore, it relies on the patient making his or her own diagnosis of dysphoria. In the first scenario, the individual is abusively taking advantage of this ideology. In the second scenario, the individual is a victim of it. Why are there so many false diagnoses? Because the authorities who are faced with these situations, whether medical, athletic or otherwise, do not have the courage to object to this harmful ideology (N.B. the situation has recently changed in the United States). Which brings us to the question of censorship.
Social and Legal Censorship
This type of accusation is a form of social censorship, that is, censorship imposed by peers, and not by the State.
The mere acknowledgement of biological reality in this article, that is, the recognition of sexual binarity and the impossibility of real sexual reassignment, risks attracting accusations of “transphobia” from followers of Butlerian pseudoscience, which maintains, like the philosopher Judith Butler, that sex is only a vague concept, even a social construct. This type of accusation is a form of social censorship, that is, censorship imposed by peers, and not by the State. Accusations of “racism,” “xenophobia,” or being from the “extreme right”—launched against anyone who dares to question critical race theory, intersectionality, or other postmodernism-inspired ideologies—are of the same ilk. The repression of freedom of expression in these areas, known as “cancel culture,” is part of the same phenomenon.
The followers of these ideologies, in order to rationalize cancel culture, claim that the only censorship that exists, the only one that deserves the name “censorship,” is that imposed by the State, that is, legal censorship. Thus, they deny the existence of the problem. However, it is obvious that social censorship is wreaking havoc and represents a serious societal problem. The only solution is to challenge social censorship by daring to debate these sensitive issues openly and publicly.
Laws Against Conversion Therapies
The conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity, that is, the error of confusing two sexual phenomena, the first of which is objectively defined while the second is a purely subjective feeling, has unfortunately already made headway in society, even in legislation. Several jurisdictions, including Quebec (P-42.2) and Canada (S.C. 2021), have adopted laws prohibiting conversion therapy. These laws have the merit of prohibiting sexual orientation conversion therapies, i.e. which claim to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This ban is necessary because such therapies are futile and harmful. They are, for the most part, simply the product of homophobic religious prejudices.
Unfortunately, these laws fail to make a necessary distinction in that they also prohibit gender identity or gender expression conversion therapies using the same model as for sexual orientation. But how can one “convert” a phenomenon that is purely subjective? Gender identity is a self-conception. The idea of “converting” this subjective identity into another just adds a second layer of ambiguity. The ban is directed against a therapy whose parameters are very difficult, if not impossible, to define.
A law which criminalizes an action which cannot even be clearly defined is a bad law.
A law which criminalizes an action which cannot even be clearly defined is a bad law. Banning gender identity conversion therapy is a double threat to society.
- It undermines medical care because it prevents medical personnel from giving appropriate guidance in certain situations. Medical personnel are forced to accept the patient’s self-diagnosis and prevented from making their own professional assessment.
- It has drastic consequences for everyone’s freedom of expression.
For all these reasons, the ban on gender identity conversion therapy must be removed from federal law S.C. 2021, from Quebec law P-42.2 and from any similar legislation in other jurisdictions. (But of course the ban on sexual orientation conversion therapy must be maintained.)
The Implicit Homophobia of Trans Activism
If religious fundamentalists, such as Christian evangelicals, are offended by the very concept of gender reassignment and the rising rate of gender dysphoria diagnoses, they need only look in a mirror to find the guilty party. Indeed, the obstinate homophobia of fundamentalists of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a major cause of erroneous diagnoses of gender dysphoria. Such religious fanatics need to start by accepting the homosexuality of their lesbian daughters and their gay sons before accusing others.
But the religious are not the only culprits. Trans activists themselves, whether they are aware of it or not, facilitate practices that are objectively homophobic when they advocate the use of medication or surgery to initiate sexual reassignment in adolescence. If a minor is apparently suffering from gender dysphoria, caution is advised. Long-term follow-up, without “gender-affirming” treatment, would make it possible to ensure a valid diagnosis and rule out cases where the young person is homosexual.
If gender-affirming care is hastily provided to minors, then so-called “gender reassignment” itself becomes, in many cases, sexual orientation conversion therapy.
If gender-affirming care is hastily provided to minors, then so-called “gender reassignment” itself becomes, in many cases, sexual orientation conversion therapy.
Thus, in Iran, an Islamic theocracy, homosexuality is strictly illegal and punishable by death. However, sex reassignment surgeries (SRS) are not only approved by religious authorities, but apparently encouraged, precisely for the purpose of “curing” homosexuality. According to a letter published in the Iranian Journal of Public Health in 2022, Iran is a world leader in this type of surgery. Thus, “Iran can be called the hell of homosexuals and the paradise of Trans seeking SRS.”
Summing Up
In my opinion, leading a person with gender dysphoria to believe that it is possible to change one’s biological sex literally is dishonest, irresponsible, and does not benefit the patient in any way. The patient deserves better.
Notes
The above article was written in early January 2025, before newly elected US President Donald Trump took office and issued the following executive orders:
- “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” 2025-01-20.
- “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” 2025-01-28.
- “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” 2025-02-05
These orders have wide-ranging consequences. The current situation may change rapidly.
On May 21, 2024, the association Atheist Freethinkers (AFT) made a presentation before the Comité des sages, mandated to advise the Quebec government on the issue of gender identity. You can consult the AFT brief and a summary of the highlights of its presentation on the AFT website.s
Next blog: TBA