The Ideology of Transgenderism Critiqued at JMU

by John S. Buckley

James Madison University recently showed how it ought to be for a conservative student group to sponsor a speaker on a controversial topic and be received with respect for principles of free speech and open inquiry. Bravo to JMU students, the JMU college administration, and the Harrisonburg community for setting such a good example.

On Wednesday evening, April 26, the JMU Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter sponsored a notable right-wing speaker, Liz Wheeler, on the “ideology of transgenderism.” She’s a prominent speaker among conservative student groups on college campuses and she doesn’t pull punches, that’s for sure.

Although the word on campus was that the transgender community at JMU and in Harrisonburg was vociferously urging a boycott of the event and a small, colorfully outfitted, and sign-holding group showed up outside the hall where the talk was to be held, the whole event — inside, outside, and in-between was entirely civil. Everyone involved deserves credit for how it played out. The room was packed and late arrivers, I’m told, were turned away. Judging from the questions put to Ms. Wheeler after the talk, the audience was not all conservatives.

As if anticipating disruption, or at least aiming to head it off at the pass, the program began with remarks from an officer of campus security. I imagine he wouldn’t have said what he did without a green light from the college powers-that-be. He said disruptive behavior would absolutely not be tolerated; he cited some provision or another of the campus code of behavior; and he assured the audience that a second violation on anyone’s part would definitely result in removal and a citation.

His comments either did the job or weren’t needed in the first place. I sensed it was the latter.

In his introduction of the speaker, Parker Boggs, the JMU YAF chairman, said he and his group had been the object of hundreds of vituperative comments on social media (and some in person), but declared it only strengthened their resolve. Then, Ms. Wheeler did her thing. She bashed “queer theory” and later Critical Racial Theory, argued later in the Q&A that DEI was deceitful because the words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” were not at all the tolerant, common sense concepts implied superficially but rather the deliberate come-on of cultural Marxism. She’s a strong speaker, quite ideological herself, and no shrinking violet in making her case.

While most of the questions she was asked suggested antagonism toward her thesis, they were not antagonistic; they were actually rather respectful. I find it interesting that the most challenging questions were from students who self-identified as … media, that is, from the student newspaper, The Breeze. They were professional.

Mr. Boggs corralled the 25 or so YAF members to stick around after the program was over for photos of the group and individual photos with Ms. Wheeler. I’d say his YAF group, at least one of whom was also an ebullient, outspoken member of Log Cabin Republicans (a nationwide, gay Republican group), was itself diverse in gender and background, and included many shades of conservatism. One community attendee wore a t-shirt reading, “Fact: Men Cannot Get Pregnant.”

Too bad the program wasn’t a debate. It would have been more informative to hear from the “other” side in more than questions afterwards. There was a paucity of statistics on transgenderism in the give-and-take, which might have been brought out in a debate context: for example, suicide rates among young people who want to transition, people who have fully transitioned, and people who have transitioned and have come to regret it. On this aspect of the overall issue, anecdotes and “blood on your hands” accusations are but weak and tawdry emotional hand-grenades. Ironically, however, the JMU “debate” organization was one of the groups on campus urging a boycott. Debate team: F; JMU YAF, A+ event for hosting a well-organized, interesting although controversial talk.

John Buckley is a University of Virginia graduate and former Republican state delegate to the General Assembly. He lives in West Virginia but continues to take a keen interest in Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

52 responses to “The Ideology of Transgenderism Critiqued at JMU”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Only at BR does a UVa graduate who actually lives in WV have standing to comment on JMU…

    1. In this country, anyone has “standing” to speak on any subject. The listener then decides whether to take the speaker’s comments seriously, or with a ‘grain of salt’.

      Were any of the things he wrote about the event untruthful or incorrect?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Welp, let’s see dismissing the arguments that the speaker and others like her may have “blood on their hands” given their public attacks on policies designed to protect the trans community and the suicide statistics surrounding them… for starters… then the critique of the JMU debate club for exercising its 1st amendment rights regarding the event… bold words for an outsider.

        1. bold words for an outsider.

          Perhaps. And you are free to dismiss the writer’s words. However, to denigrate or reject his “standing” to say or write those words, instead of addressing the arguments he is putting forth, can result in people inferring that you have no legitimate opposing arguments – and I know that is not true.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Based on JAB’s routine promotion of the various alumni groups, we are clearly expected to give extra consideration to (for instance) the supposed JMU alumni on the Madison Cabinet. Certainly the reverse is also true.

        2. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          So you can speak for the trans community? Are you transgender? Why is a guy from WV not permitted to speak about JMU? Why are you permitted to criticize him?
          “Policies designed to protect the trans community” – you mean stopping the mutilation and getting the psychological treatment needed? Is it OK to state what is biologically true? Do I have “standing” to say that?
          You see, the problem with you Lefties is you know in your hearts that you are wrong, but you can’t stand people saying so, so you have to shut us up in the name of “inclusion.”

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            He certainly can exercise his right to free speech… just not claim a right to consequence-free speech.

            As to your standing, are you a JMU student or graduate? Does not JAB claim special consideration due to his UVA alumni status?

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            You have the right to make your always wrong comments. That was the point. You didn’t have the right to “gatekeep” his comments, and I threw your inanity back at you.
            For what it is worth, I am a triple Hoo and a former JMU parent, a former UVA parent, a current UVA parent, a former W&L parent, and a former Mary Wash parent. Good enough for you? Do I have your permission to comment on Tech, W&M, GM, UofR, etc?

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Well, you certainly have more credibility than the author on the topic….

  2. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Transgenderism is unscientific and generally a cult.

    1. VaNavVet Avatar

      You speak with such authority so please share your extensive background with us.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Here is some scientific evidence that transgenderism is real and based in brain structure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/

      Do you know anyone who is transgender upon which you base this broad statement?

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        All of human history and every cell in your body. But other than that, sure. Let’s call a mental health issue a biological mistake.
        And then let’s lie to the poor people, and sell them a bag of goods that they can never be.
        Because “compassion.” That’s not compassionate.

      2. “Do you know anyone who is transgender upon which you base this broad statement?”

        Yes. I do.

        The comparative study is interesting, but at this point, I have only read the abstract.

        The research is new and only hints at a potential link. If you follow scientific research you will understand that it would not be unusual for something like this to be completely refuted in the years to come. (Or confirmed to be true.)

        My observations:

        1. Sample size:

        “…we determined in 42 subjects…”

        No procedure or drug would even be considered, much less granted approval with those numbers.

        2. The authors are correct to use numerous qualifiers, ‘did not seem to” “the present findings” “may” etc.

        3. The occurrence of gender dysphoria is clearly labeled a “disorder,” and it remains to be seen how best to correct it. There is no scientific basis for assuming that patients will have the best long-term outcome by gender reassignment.

        4. Cis-gender males and females do not have this disorder.

        5. Gender reassignment, off label use of powerful drugs, and gender reassignment surgery do not rely of any biological conformation prior to approval. (somatostatin neurons or any other test)

        Transgenderism as it is currently practiced and administered is unscientific. Someday, that may change. I hope so.

        In the meantime, extreme caution is advised, and there is no basis to justify withholding information from parents, or performing life altering medical “treatments” on minors.

        1. 1. Sample Size: Yes, ideally you want larger sample sizes, but some conditions are just more rare than others. That doesn’t render the findings wrong outright, just requiring more rigor. You’re also acting like this is the only study.
          2. Language: You are not going to see a single study make definitive claims, because the scientific method involves numerous testing. And indeed the present data suggests current treatment methods work and will continued to be utilized until better methods arise.
          3. It remains to be seen how to best correct it, but we have methods to treat it that show positive results. Social Transitioning, Hormone Replacement Therapy, surgical procedures. You’re expecting one study to be all-encompassing.
          4. Cisgender people do not have it because…they are cisgender. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this tautology.
          5. What would that accomplish? The current method is to make the body match the brain. Attempts to do the inverse have had poor results. You don’t just analyze someone’s brain chemicals to see if anti-depressants are working: you are also gauging their actual mood because what’s the point if the tests read well but the person is still a wreck?

          I have the feeling you are not waiting for more data, but rather data that conforms to pre-established beliefs.

          1. Rosie:
            “Cisgender people do not have it because…they are cisgender. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this tautology.”

            “it” being gender identity disorder

            Apparently you cannot bring yourself to say “gender identity disorder,” even though that is the terminology in the journal article itself.

            The article suggests a possible mismatch between the genitals and brain of those with gender identity disorder.

            If there are indeed two separate components of sexual identity, (genitalia plus brain), then the transgender community has a problem. They insist that the brain is the sole determining factor, regardless of genitalia.

          2. If they have gender dysphoria then they wouldn’t cisgender. They’d be transgender.

            It’s like saying straight people aren’t gay. It’s true, but I don’t know what greater point you’re trying to make is.

          3. Rosie:
            “I have the feeling you are not waiting for more data, but rather data that conforms to pre-established beliefs.”

            You have no basis for that, nor are you aware of my personal experience with transgender individuals, my feelings for them, etc.

            Once again, let’s compare and contrast my approach vs. that the transgender activist community. When Mr. Hall-Sizemore presented a link, I went there and learned what I could. My understanding has changed somewhat as a result.

            How do transgender activists respond to studies that they might disagree with? They react with outrage, call it misinformation and try to get it removed so nobody else can view it. Then they try to get people fired and ruin their lives.

            Hardly a search for truth in my opinion.

            I want for other’s children what I want for my own – happy, healthy and productive lives. I just have what I believe is healthy skepticism, and am concerned that cutting off their genitals is not in a child’s long-term best interest.

            Why is that so hard to understand?

            Are you actively looking for truth, even if it doesn’t confirm your existing beliefs? Might your critique of me, apply just as well to you?

      3. Mr. Hall-Sizemore

        I have printed out the full journal article and noticed that it was published in 2000. That was 23 years ago.

        Surely you understand that if these findings from 42 patients cannot be independently replicated, they are of no value. Have the findings been replicated? Where? I would be most interested in seeing what subsequent research have found with respect to somatostatin neurons and gender.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I commend you for reading the entire linked article. I do not know of any replication or follow-up on these findings.

          This is not an area in which I have done much reading. My objective in referring to the article was a response to the ridiculous claim that “transgengerism is unscientific”. There is science to support it.

          1. I respectfully disagree that one study with 42 patients done 23 years ago establishes a scientific basis for the transgender movement as it has taken hold currently.

            I would, however, appreciate seeing an article on this topic where you or others could provide a more complete understanding of what science has to say on the topic.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Here is a recent discussion of the literature. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/

            Again,my objective was not to present a comprehensive scientific explanation of gender dysphoria, only to refute the bald assertion that there is no scientific basis at all for the condition.

          3. The bottom line from this report shows science has more questions than answers about gender dysphoria. As their conclusion notes: “the causal mechanism of GD is unknown” as of now and they “point to a possible biological and genetic underpinning of GD as stemming from a dissonance between gonadal development and brain sexual
            differentiation and orientation. However, GD is a multifactorial
            condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Further research is
            required to identify a true causal mechanism of GD, as well as
            investigating an inheritance pattern.”

          4. The bottom line from this report shows science has more questions than answers about gender dysphoria. As their conclusion notes: “the causal mechanism of GD is unknown” as of now and they “point to a possible biological and genetic underpinning of GD as stemming from a dissonance between gonadal development and brain sexual
            differentiation and orientation. However, GD is a multifactorial
            condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Further research is
            required to identify a true causal mechanism of GD, as well as
            investigating an inheritance pattern.”

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      So are tattoos.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        And you have to be 18 to legally get a tattoo in Virginia.

        Funny how that works.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Keep reading…
          “ No person shall tattoo or perform body piercing for hire or consideration on a person less than eighteen years of age, knowing or having reason to believe such person is less than eighteen years of age except (i) in the presence of the person’s parent or guardian, or (ii) when done by or under the supervision of a medical doctor, registered nurse or other medical services personnel licensed pursuant to Title 54.1 in the performance of their duties.”

          Yeah, it is funny how that works…

          And it’s all the transgender wants too.

    4. VaPragamtist Avatar
      VaPragamtist

      “Transgenderism is unscientific and generally a cult”

      Yes and no.

      As Dick pointed out, there’s long been scientific research into the biology and neurology of gender dysphoria. I remember watching video clips in high school psychology class on the rare phenomenon. Dick’s quarter-century-old article is one example of specific research. For a very small portion of the population, there’s a biological mismatch that causes some to feel that they were born the wrong sex.

      At the same time, some have taken the idea of personal choice to an extreme: people should be able to be live how they want, be with who they want, dress how they want, do what they want with their bodies, act how they want, and be totally and utterly free. A physical and sexual revolution.

      There’s something to this idea of individual liberty. . .but the check on this has always been social norms, which leaned toward the center or conservative in professional environments. Sure, you can do whatever you want because it feels good or that’s how you express yourself. . .but unless you want to be a social outcast, do it in private. Or at least know the time and place for everything.

      Now add the idea of gender, a social construct. The physical and sexual revolutionaries believe gender is a spectrum, and they should be able to express their gender in whatever way they want, wherever they are, and however they want to. The includes permanent physical and hormonal changes. It also includes living as a member of the opposite sex and all that it entails: using the same language, having the same life experiences, playing on the same athletic teams, using the same facilities, etc.

      The issues/cognitive disconnects are:
      1. Somehow, somewhere we’ve allowed the two conversations (the scientific study of sex/gender dysphoria and the social construct of gender as it relates to the physical/sexual revolution), to become conflated.

      2. The language used, assumptions, and messaging from revolutionaries seems to pivot, change, and evolve to overcome the cognitive disconnect resulting from this conflation of ideas.

      3. The normal societal checks have failed. Partly because we’ve conflated sex/gender, and partly because of militancy from the revolutionaries, and partly because of everything else, any attempt to rein in the issue and have actual conversations is dismissed as “hate”.

      4. We’re now setting up systems, policies, and institutions based on a conflated idea on which we’re unable to have actual dialogue.

      To sum: transgenderism is scientific. But the scientific base has been commandeered by those expressing a larger social idea that has moved beyond the science and into the realm of total cultural change.

  3. VaNavVet Avatar

    Whole thing was probably a waste of time as nobody’s mind was going to be changed by a raft of opinions with very few actual statistics. At least the YAF members were able to get their pictures taken with the speaker.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    In the 90s the popular conservative view of homosexuality was that it was a lifestyle choice. It is not always, and is now widely accepted that it not at all. There are studies marking differences in the brain.

    Now the popular position on transgenderism is that it is a choice. That is true… to an extent. The therapy and surgery is without doubt a choice, and unless humans become more like those fish that actually change gender spontaneously, it’s always going to be a choice.

    However, the need for the therapy and surgery is not a choice.

    WayneS posited that gender was fully determined by XX and XY. It has been shown that it’s more of a “Yes, but.”

    In a small number of documented cases, very small, testes develop where, based on XX and XY alone, there should be ovaries, and vice versa. These “mishaps” have been traced to genetic coding.

    Thus, if we are to have gender only based on XX and XY then those few cases establishes the need for therapy and surgery.

    But now the question becomes “What else in the genetic coding establishes gender?”

    At least 5–10% of the human genome remains unassembled, unmapped, and poorly characterized.

    Lots of surprises coming.

    1. “Lots of surprises coming.”

      There’s a LOT we do not know, but there are some things we know for certain.

      Some people deeply regret the transition, and they can never completely undo what was done.

      People are heavily influenced by others, and sometimes make very poor decisions. That is especially true for young people.

      1. And yet the surgeries consistently have high satisfaction rates, higher than those of cardiac surgery.

        And yet, you want to focus on a percent chance of percent at the expense of everyone else. Extremely telling that’s the attitude instead of simply figuring out ways to tighten up diagnoses even further without creating false negatives in turn.

        1. If you look at the research with a more critical eye, as you should, it will concern you.

          Many of the researchers and writers have a vested interest in the outcome. Some are far from objective scientists – more like activists with degrees. That’s troubling.

          Some of the studies with that “high satisfaction rate,” do in fact have a very high rate of non-response. Individuals who have successfully committed suicide don’t respond to surveys. The research needs to be conducted more strictly for me to have much confidence in it.

          Rosie:
          “And yet, you want to focus on a percent chance of percent at the expense of everyone else.”

          That’s the way medicine is supposed to work.

          Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient.

          -19th-century English surgeon Thomas Inman.

        2. If you look at the research with a more critical eye, as you should, it will concern you.

          Many of the researchers and writers have a vested interest in the outcome. Some are far from objective scientists – more like activists with degrees. That’s troubling.

          Some of the studies with that “high satisfaction rate,” do in fact have a very high rate of non-response. Individuals who have successfully committed suicide don’t respond to surveys. The research needs to be conducted more strictly for me to have much confidence in it.

          Rosie:
          “And yet, you want to focus on a percent chance of percent at the expense of everyone else.”

          That’s the way medicine is supposed to work.

          Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient.

          -19th-century English surgeon Thomas Inman.

          1. The mortality rate for a bypass operation is around 2-3%. By your logic, we should stop all bypass surgeries because of the small number of potential deaths. Do no harm, right?

            You’re not looking at it with a critical eye: you made up your mind and no amount of evidence will sway you. That is the antithesis of scientific.

          2. You’re not comparing the same things. The potential mortality risk for not doing the surgery is higher than the surgical risk or it wouldn’t be considered as an option.

          3. Additionally, with transformation surgery, the risk of losing one’s healthy genitals is 100 %.

          4. You are actually going to compare the required repair of an organ that if it stops, we’re dead, with the elective removal of 100% healthy genital organs?

            Heart surgery has matured to the point where:

            A. The need is objectively established and certain. I’ve had a CT scan, and even got a copy of the DVD for myself. I can see problems or lack thereof with my own eyes. I can also take it to other professionals to solicit second opinions, third opinions, or more if I want.

            Where’s the objective physical proof of the need for gender transformation surgery? There ain’t none!

            B. The risks of various treatments (or lack of treatments) are well established.

            What’s the false positive rate for gender transition? It’s still a debate.

            Many with gender Dysphoria outgrow it, and lead normal lives.

            If our brave new world was really improving lives, shouldn’t depression and suicides be going down? They aren’t. That doesn’t bother you?

            In my opinion, this area of research is not yet mature, and I don’t believe in experimenting on children.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Some. Not all.

        And your one-size-fits-all thinking is antithetical to America and individual freedom. Now, ain’t it?

        The government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of all. Now, is it?

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Some. Not all.

        And your one-size-fits-all thinking is antithetical to America and individual freedom. Now, ain’t it?

        The government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of all. Now, is it?

        1. Nancy Naive:
          “Some. Not all.”

          That’s why I said “some.” Read it again if you missed it.

          Nancy Naive:
          “And your one-size-fits-all thinking..”

          I’m not the person with one-size-fits-all thinking. The transgender activists are. Read my comments again. Compare and contrast them with the rhetoric coming from activists. I doubt you will see the qualifiers I make sure to include.

          Nancy Naive:
          “The government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of all. Now, is it?”

          I never said it was. I do think government has a role to play in the genital mutilation of minors, but adults are free to research and make choices for themselves.

        2. Nancy Naive:
          “Some. Not all.”

          That’s why I said “some.” Read it again if you missed it.

          Nancy Naive:
          “And your one-size-fits-all thinking..”

          I’m not the person with one-size-fits-all thinking. The transgender activists are. Read my comments again. Compare and contrast them with the rhetoric coming from activists. I doubt you will see the qualifiers I make sure to include.

          Nancy Naive:
          “The government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of all. Now, is it?”

          I never said it was. I do think government has a role to play in the genital mutilation of minors, but adults are free to research and make choices for themselves.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Then, why do you care? Doesn’t effect you.

            Of course, maybe you could hang out a shingle and counsel persons thinking of transitioning?

          2. I care for many reasons. Why shouldn’t I care? Why do you care?

            Maybe I’m familiar with history and think we should try to learn lessons, so that mistakes aren’t repeated.

            “According to the scientists who pioneered the treatment, some patients improved after getting a lobotomy. But others developed apathy and a reduced ability to feel emotions. Some people became permanently incapacitated by the procedure, and in some cases, it was fatal.”

            https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-surprising-history-of-the-lobotomy

          3. Rosie, your absolute statements about transgender surgery and children were too far off topic without any documented support.

        3. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Some people on the farm are more equal than others. The more equal cohort expresses the better ideology.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Perhaps, similar to conservatism and as the title of this article asserts, transgenderism is an ideology. Further perhaps, like conservatism, if a thing may be cognitively conceived, it is an actuality.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I would suggest the ideology is anti-transgenderism.

        “A Montana lawmaker suggested she’d rather risk her child’s suicide than let her transition. State Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe said in a floor debate in March that her daughter “was suicidal for three years” and when asked if she’d do anything to save her, her answer was ‘no.’”

        Hard to fight hatred that deep.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          IDK, as the expressed words offer little by way of emotion but a great deal of righteousness. Most all accept that they would do most anything for their children. Many on this platform in abstraction likely agree with the Montana legislator. Some how for them suicide is painless.

          If the ideology masks emotion including hatred, it works for some.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s explains a lot. An unwillingness to sacrifice our generation’s comfort for the survival of the next. Is that the conservatism of today?

Leave a Reply