A delusional concept is surfacing from America, which has mobilized voters, parents, and teachers and added new force to the political program. It’s referred to as “gender ideology,” and according to activists who coined the term, the concept redefines the benefits of reforms for women as well as LGBTI people, such as the right to marry same-sex as an “imposition” of a system of belief that undermines fundamental principles and values, and corrupts society.

If the flimsy story of gender ideologies persists, the basic facts and concepts rooted in reality will continue to be lost as generations go by.

What is Gender Ideology?

Gender ideology, also known as gender theory or gender ideology theory, is a complex and controversial issue that has recently attracted a lot of attention. It covers a variety of ideas and theories about gender roles, along with the roles and expectations that go along with them. Although some believe it encourages acceptance and inclusion, critics argue that it could have negative effects. In this article, ReelNat will talk about this ideology and look at the harm that could result from the conceptions of gender ideology.

Gender ideology is based on the belief that gender can be viewed as a cultural and social notion rather than a solely biological one; it believes that society creates gender roles and norms that are detrimental to those who don’t conform to these norms. Gender ideology advocates insist on the diversity and fluidity of gender expressions and promote equality and acceptance for all.

The Gender Ideology is the belief that the gender binary does not reflect the full range of complexity of human beings and that humans can be adequately described in terms of the “internal sense of gender” known as “gender identity” that may be different from the “sex assigned at birth.”

Gender Ideology and Its Harmful Consequences

Based on Google’s Dictionary function, “gender identity” is “a person’s innate sense of gender.” The word has been “chiefly used in contexts where it is contrasted with the sex registered for them at birth.” So, we’re required to understand each of these terms in light of the other.

This circular definition of gender identity is now referred to as the standard; the term “gender” appears in both the definition and the word being defined, both in the explanans and the explanandum.

Despite this, however, we can gain an understanding of the gender-based ideology by looking at its utilization of “gender” and “sex.” For the majority of people, “gender” might look as if it’s a synonym for “sex,” as the term has existed since the beginning of time. The presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, has recently posted 10 “truths,” among them, “2. Two genders exist.” It would have been better said as “There are only two sexes,” which is exactly what he meant, or so I believe.

Why does this matter? Since gender ideologues often make use of “gender” as a shorthand for “gender identity,” as in the term “gender affirming care” in medical practice. The “care” affirms the presumed gender identity of the patient, even if it involves destroying the patient’s primary and secondary organs of sexuality. The gender ideologues, for their part, do not admit a restriction on the variety of identities based on gender, and their critics say, “There are only two sexes.”

Instead of debunking the reality of sex outright, they use the widely used substitute “sex assigned [or registered] at birth.” They avoid using the term “sex,” the true biological distinction between males and females, and suggest that it is a social concept; this is why many people are confused but beware of being misled. If you come across these jargon-ridden terms used to justify what you believe to be real, You can be certain that you’re not dealing with a sound science or a solid philosophy. Instead, you’re dealing with an incoherent mix of concepts that could be described as gender ideology.

Undermining Biological Reality

One of the major criticisms of gender ideologies is that it undermines the biological truth of sex. While acknowledging the existence of transgender people is essential, certain beliefs about gender ideology claim sexuality as a biological phenomenon is purely a social construct that can reduce biological differences between males and women. This may hinder medical understanding and treatment for conditions that are gender-specific.

Suppression of Opinions

In some instances, the gender-based ideology has been used to silence opinions and to limit open discussion. Many critics say it is a way to promote a rigid orthodoxy that does not accept the different opinions of others. People who voice concerns or reservations regarding particular aspects of gender ideologies are usually branded bigoted or transphobic, preventing open dialogue and exploration of the mind.

Impact on Children

The use of gender-based ideology in the field of education has caused concern, particularly with regard to young children. Some critics say that forcing gender fluidity concepts on young children at an early stage can be confusing and cause excessive stress to adhere to various non-binary gender identities. Some argue that children cannot fully comprehend complex notions and could accidentally influence them into making choices that may result in long-term consequences.

Medical Interventions

The gender ideology has prompted more discussions and increased access to medical treatments for people who are gender dysphoric. Although these treatments have saved lives for certain people, as they claim, they can also cause the possibility of danger. There are risks of introducing medicalization to gender non-conforming persons, specifically adolescents, and children; the rush to medicate can lead to irrevocable decisions, which could cause harm to people who later regret their decisions.

Effect on Women’s Rights

The discussion over gender ideology is also causing tensions in the movement for feminists. Some feminists believe that focusing on gender identities could reduce the gains that women’s rights have gained by rendering it hard to differentiate between gender-based discrimination and sex discrimination based on identity. This debate highlights the many complexities regarding gender-based ideology and its potential damage.

NAS Statement on Gender Ideology in Higher Education

The National Association of Scholars opposes the increasingly accepted belief system at universities and colleges that the differences between males and females should be viewed primarily or solely as culturally defined “gender.” Policy manifestations of gender ideologies include:

• The law requires that faculty, students, and staff address every student with the pronoun he has chosen.
• Single-sex sports teams must accept players of the opposite sex.
• Insisting that faculty members are recruited through “gender preferences” to achieve “equity” in all fields regardless of individual preference or ability.
• Requiring self-declared “transgender” students be accommodated in their preferred locker rooms, restrooms, and other places that were previously sex-specific.
• Removing “sex” with the word “gender” on official forms, asking faculty, students, and staff to self-identify.
• The requirement that teachers endorse and explain to students the notion of “gender identification” is an issue of individual choice (“gender declaration”).
• Instructing teachers to state that pathological conditions like “gender dysphoria” are normal.
• Pathologizing opposition to transgender ideologies as “transphobia.”
• In support of the surgical mutilation and psychological torture of children in the name of respecting them with their “gender identifications.”
• Cancellation of literary works and art, philosophy, or science that depict human sexual differences as being binary.
• The idea of treating homosexuality as a collective identity rather than an act and insisting on a growing list of distinct sexual and gender group identities (e.g., LGBTQ2+)
• Defaming colleges and individuals who adhere to beliefs that view the difference between women and men as divinely ordained and endorsed by the divine authority.
• Discriminating and punishing those who oppose gender-based ideologies.

The basic idea behind gender ideologies is unclear and contradictory. The theory that is the basis of the aforementioned changes on campuses elaborates on the idea of extreme human plasticity; it is not a single dogma but a confluence of several. Sometimes, it says that each person has the ability, at an early age in childhood, to “decide” their gender; often, rather than “deciding,” the individual is believed to “discover” their gender as something hidden within their psyche. Sometimes, the focus is not on the person in question but rather on “society” as either inhibiting decision-making and making discoveries through the imposition of a strict two-sex model on the wide range of human traits or by focusing on one or the other route of gender evolution.

The fact that they’ve become well-known among faculty, students, and college administrators deserves noting, but it’s not the primary concern of NAS. These theories suggest a rebellion against the common understanding of humans throughout all times and cultures. It’s possible that a concept as important as “gender plasticity” would have been recognized in the human mind in a larger way before the present generation if it was as powerful as it is today. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, and its uniqueness makes it more difficult to institutionalize this concept merely because those who advocate for it are devoted to the concept.

The NAS is skeptical that the scientific examination of the notion of gender plasticity and its numerous variations (transgenderism, gender fluidity, genderqueer, etc.) merits the attention it is currently receiving, but the academy should be open to research into such concepts provided they are subject to the identical standards of intellectual scrutiny which are applied to all provisory notions. The issue is that the idea of gender plasticity is no longer considered a theory that is argued in opposition to various established facts but rather as a well-established principle. Any disagreement with this doctrine is often NOT met by arguments about its validity but rather with censure and, in certain cases, even career-ending sanctions.

The NAS strongly opposes the practice that universities, colleges, and professional societies use to treat these notions as established facts and transforming them into rules enforced on entire academic communities. Making these ideas self-evidently real or plausible enough to justify their use as a policy of the official establishment is a form of academic incompetence.

ReelNat recognizes the fact that we support freedom of thought in expressing ideas connected with the notion of gender plasticity, which could be liable to be misused by certain faculty members who persist in claiming that the idea is, in fact, accurate, but universities should take firm steps to prevent these violations from becoming commonplace. This includes rescinding the stance of gender ideologists that those who disagree must be punished and holding gender ideologists themselves to appropriate rules of argument research, evidence, and openness.

The cases where faculty members were disciplined or dismissed for refusing to use students’ pronouns of choice are, for instance, blatant violations of intellectual and academic freedom and a manifestation of authoritarianism on campus. Saying female students can join male students in locker rooms and restrooms is physically risky and shameful to at least a few female students. 

“Gender plasticity” is a radical distortion of human nature and reality; humans are biologically a species that is sexually binary. There is no doubt regarding this; it’s true at all levels of biology that is discernible in this way: as one contributor of Academic Questions put it, regardless of whether the criteria are gonadal, anatomical, hormonal or genetic, chromosomal, brain, genomic, or neural, human beings can be distinguished into only two genders. Congenital disabilities, as well as rare genetic disorders that cause “intersex” conditions, do not alter this fact, nor does the attraction of the same sex. “Human plasticity” is real, but the nature of things limits it and does not justify the claim of human plasticity that is extreme, i.e., it is not a fact that “gender” negates biological reality.

To state these facts that are well-known or for anyone who is familiar with the basics of science is nowadays subject to severe censorship on campuses of colleges. A vocabulary of shame was developed to denigrate those who proclaim the facts in this way as being a signpost of bigotry, hate, or fear. The use of such words is yet another sign of the harm gender doctrine has caused to the scholarly community. Instead of arguments against “gender ideology” or arguments against those who oppose it, The movement stokes anger and rage against anyone who tries to question its premise.

NAS does not intend to be a moral arbiter across all levels of education institutions, but they do acknowledge it is possible to address moral questions that are too often ignored in order to let harmful ideas develop under the cover of “progress.” 

ReelNat is inspired by the need to declare our concern over the damage done to students by gender ideology. 

We are also influenced by the necessity of standing in the way of the truth threatened by a system based upon a lie. 

Read More: What is Objective Truth: Is Truth Even Objective or Subjective?

Read More: Standing for the Truth Regardless of How You Feel

Read More: Fitness Toptoon Free: Stay Motivated And Achieve Your Fitness Goals

STANDING FOR THE TRUTH 

Human plasticity in extreme amounts is an illusion with no basis in anthropology, biology, or psychology.

In that context, we affirm our principle against gender-based ideology in today’s world.

Conclusion

Gender-related ideology is a complex and controversial topic that has both supporters and critics. However, its primary goal is to encourage inclusion and acceptance for any gender, according to them. It can also result in adverse consequences if it is not dealt with in a thoughtful manner. Finding a balance between acknowledging the legitimateness of diverse gender identities and recognizing the medical ethics, biological realities, and rights of individuals is vital to addressing the concerns of those who oppose it and encouraging constructive dialogue around this challenging subject. The most important thing is to engage in meaningful discussions considering the subtleties and the potential harm while encouraging compassion and understanding of all individuals regardless of their gender identity.