I hope this comment makes it before your post is taken down.

Are you aware that it’s possible for a transgender person to agree with most of your criticisms here? and, perhaps, in spirit, with all of them?

This is mildly complex discussion, and having to rush (in case you’re terminated) doesn’t help. I’ll give it a try.

The distinction between objective Truth and personal truth is imperative; but I don’t think you’ve fully appreciated its implications. The subject-object dichotomy is rationally uncrossable; it is the foundation of rationality itself. As a psychologist/philosopher, you need to fully appreciate this. Rational thought rests on the distinction between self and not-self, and this is why the dichotomy cannot be resolved rationally. For those who believe in a metaphysical or spiritual side to man’s nature, that is where the dichotomy is resolved; but this resolution cannot be reduced to merely rational terms. Thus, whenever we speak of non-transcendent truth, we are necessarily talking about “my truth” or “our truth.” While objective reality is absolute, perception of objective reality is subjective and therefore relative. A is A, but sometimes the A is actually a B and we don’t realize it.

Artificial frames of reference, like mathematics, are not immune to this problem; see Gödel.

Whether men can get pregnant depends on how you define “man.” What does it mean to be male? Is maleness strictly a matter of physical characteristics? or, is there a non-material element, and, if so, can they diverge? These are questions resolved on an individual level, and strictly speaking are matters of personal belief. And, whether you believe that human beings are merely biological machines or possess a non-material side, the question persists. To a strict materialist, I would ask whether all that can be known about physical maleness is already known, or if there might be things about it we have yet to learn. It is quite possible that gender divergence, or “being transgender,” is the result of hormonal imbalance in the womb, genetic issues, nurture during post-natal brain development, or some combination of the above. To the metaphysician, the response is less complex; some orthodox Jews, for example, believe that it’s possible for a female soul to inhabit a male body.

None of this requires us to deny biological fact. Even if there are different manifestations of maleness, only those within the subset containing the XY genomic configuration can father children. But the issue of nomenclature is not a scientific issue. It’s an issue of convention. It is important to not conflate those issues that are merely semantic with those that have actual substance.

Now, on to a distinction with more immediate importance.

There is a distinction that is being ignored, glossed over, on both sides of the gender wars. Gender dysphoria is a fact; “being transgender” is a belief. Gender dysphoria is an affliction with defined characteristics and an established treatment protocol; “gender,” as that term is used by victims of gender dysphoria, cannot be proven to exist. Gender, and being transgender, are beliefs held by victims of gender dysphoria for the same reason any belief is held: in an effort to find meaning, especially in matters of adversity.

When transgender people try to force others, by law, to submit to their transgender status, e.g. in sport or in access to women’s safe spaces, they are imposing a belief on others. None of them realize this; like most people, they don’t think critically very well while suffering, and so they conflate fact and belief. But when people like Matt Walsh or Michael Knowles seek to deny even adult victims of gender dysphoria the right to medical treatment for their condition, they do the same thing. They conflate the belief in gender with treatment for gender dysphoria, and seek to deny the latter because they deny the former.

And you have done this as well. Most simply, the distinction I pointed out at the start, upon which your article is based, is an example of conflation of fact with belief. The idea that only those with an XY genomic configuration can father children is a fact, but the idea that only those with an XY genomic configuration are male is a belief.

Now, none of this means that these matters cannot be resolved politically. The difference of opinion whether Caitlyn Jenner, for example, is female is reasonable; a difference of opinion whether Kris Jenner is female is not. So, while virtually no one, cis or trans, would suggest that Kris Jenner be banned from women’s safe spaces, many people would suggest that Caitlyn Jenner be so banned – and this difference is reasonable. All differences of this nature are matters of belief, it’s true; but, in a free society, there will always be a critical mass of the citizenry who will create consensus on what will be regarded as real. In the past, Black people were believed by many to be inferior, and slavery was legal; but, over time, the consensus changed. The fact that a Civil War was needed to put an end to the argument doesn’t change its basic nature – conversion of the Southern states by the sword is still conversion.

Hope this helps. Few people seem to understand these things; but lately I’ve noticed a few people waking up to them.