First, I want to be clear that I am very grateful that this author addressed the use by social conservative bigwigs of what is essentially scientism in the place of science. This needs to be said often. People like Shapiro and Walsh can be answered, but there seem to be few people both capable and interested in doing so.

The only reason I'm saying what follows is that I think the idea of gender being a "social construct" is inherently invalidating of the transgender experience. I say this, knowing the initial response by many will be resistance. All I can ask for is an open mind.

The basic question is: is the transgender experience reflective of something objectively real? IOW, Are maleness and femaleness real, and is there something beyond sex that defines them?

The reason this is the fundamental question is, if gender isn't objectively real, then being transgender is not objectively real. Therefore, for being transgender to be objectively real, we must assume that gender is, as well -- and that gender is, therefore, not a social construct.

The term "social construct" seems to be understood differently by different people; but its basic significance is that it stands in opposition to objective reality. If gender is a social construct, then it is relative, defined by whatever the milieu happens to be, without reference to an objective anchor. It should be clear that this is unworkable; because, if gender isn't objectively real, then being transgender is not objectively real, and any conception of personal identity as male or female deviating from sex is delusion, fantasy or mental illness. This result is intolerable; thererore, gender must be objectively real.

Gender roles, gender expression, gender identity ... these things are relative, at least in part; but gender cannot be. It is essential that the idea that gender is a social construct be abandoned, inasmuch as it completely delegitimizes the idea that being transgender has any basis in reality.