Objectivism and Transgenderism

Charlotte Kushner over at the americanthinker.com has written a harsh critique of ARI's attack of Matt Walsh's documentary "What is a Woman?" While Kushner's article makes some interesting points and lands a few well aimed blows at Onkar Ghate, Chief Philosophy Officer at ARI (what a title!), what interests me more is the general view taken by ARI on this contentious issue. The position of ARI, as far as I can make out, is that there is nothing wrong with transgenderism and that there is no reason to object to individuals transitioning from one gender to another. This is notable if for no reason then it's not likely  that Rand would have agreed with this. But it's also interesting in that there are reasons to doubt that Rand herself could have provided a cogent argument against the morality of transitioning based on the principles of her own philosophy.

There are four basic positions on the trans-issue:

1. Gender dysphoria is both a real and a dire condition which can be successfully treated through a surgical intervention by which the individual is turned into a kind of replica of the gender he/she identifies with. This treatment is so effective at curing the individual's suffering that it can and should be used on minors. Transgenders are often to brutally treated by society that they deserve to have their medical expenses compensated by the state (i.e., taxpayers) and/or insurance companies.
2. Gender dysphoria is likely real and a dire condition, but to "cure" it by surgical intervention is so radical and invasive that only adults should be allowed to make use of it. Minors should not be allowed to transition because it's just too risky. What if they live to regret the irreversible changes inflicted upon them?
3. Whether gender dysphoria is real or not is besides the point. Transitioning is just too extreme a cure for the condition. That such procedures should be allowed against children is a scandal. Psychologists who manipulate minors into transitioning and the surgeons who perform the operation deserve prison sentences. Adults, however, because they are adults and hence free and sovereign citizens, should be allowed to transition, but they must bear all their medical expenses and not become a burden on tax payers (or insurance companies).
4. Any kind of transitioning or puberty blockers should be illegal, because it's against the laws of God and/or the universe. Gender dysphoria, to the extent that it is real, is a mental illness that needs to be treated with psychology-based interventions, not physical mutilation. Those who transition become perpetual patients (i.e., they need constant medical care and access to hormones), and this means they'll likely become a burden on an already over-burdened medical system.

Now one of the claims of Objectivism is that it can determine questions of morality through "reason." But how would "reason" determine which of these four positions is, from an ethical point of view, most correct or valid?  It seems like whenever people talk about this issue, whether it is Yaron Brook, Matt Walsh, or Joe Biden, the main issues at stake are assumed as kind of moral axiom that cannot be questioned or denied.  And no wonder---because, as George Santayana reminds us, "The ultimate intuitions on which ethics rests are not debatable, for they are not opinions we hazard but preferences we feel; and it can be neither correct nor incorrect to feel them." If you are horrified by the sufferings of gender dysphoria and are convinced that radical surgical interventions can bring an end to all this suffering, then it's hard not to conclude that either the first or the second position is the morally "right" one. But if on the other hand you find yourself horrified at the idea of genital mutilation and creating permanent wounds that have to be kept in an unhealed state, you'll be hard pressed to regard gender assignment surgeries as anything but an abomination that needs to be put down by the force of law. But in either instance, where is the "reason"? It is certainly not found in the mere feeling of horror.

Objectivists have failed to add anything to this controversy through their so-called "reason." They have merely expressed their various preferences, and then quibbled in bad faith about the rationalizations used to justify rival positions. Ghate and company have it out for Matt Walsh. So they put the worst possible interpretation on everything he says and act like this somehow makes them "rational." Ghate contends, for example, that because Walsh went to Africa to ask some tribesman what they thought of men trying to become women, this constitutes evidence of a desire to return to a more primitive state---as if Walsh is eager to give up all his wealth and access to modern conveniences in order to live in a grass hut in Africa. Walsh of course has no desire to live in a grass hut and Ghate's inuenndo is just another of the usual smears that Objectivists of the more orthodox stripe often specialize in. 

Objectivist Roundup, July 2024

1.  Another month and another Kindle Book.  The Atlas Society just published Robert Tracisnki’s Pocket Guide to Ayn Rand.

2.   The Ayn Rand Fan Club had an interesting discussion of “Social Hierarchies In and Out of Objectivism.”  They mention a recent interview with economist Walter Block who was involved in the Objectivist movement in the 1960’s.  He confirms the cultish side of Objectivism and says Rand would excommunicate people if she thought they were failing to see the implications of her thought.  They also include an interview with up-and-coming Objectivist psychologist Gena Gorlin.  Gorlin is asked if she’s read Nathaniel Branden’s The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (a post-Split book).  She says she hasn’t read it or much of Branden.  She says he’s a minor figure in psychology and implies his theory of self-esteem is outdated.  Certainly, Branden’s exaggerated view of the importance for self-esteem hasn’t held up well in recent research (for example, it’s been shown that criminals have high self-esteem and even commit crime to keep their self-esteem up).

3.  The Ayn Rand Institute Press just published a collection of writings by Tara Smith and others called The First Amendment.  I enjoyed Smith’s essays and in particular her discussion of religious exemptions to government laws and regulations.  Of note is Onkar Ghate’s essay on the “separation of church and state.”   As long time readers of the ARCHN Blog know, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government.  States could and did support religion in various ways.  Ghate doesn’t mention this or even appear to know this.  He mentions Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist where he coined the phrase.  However, in his Second Inaugural Address, Jefferson wrote, “I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”  And what would an essay on religion be without the Tertullian misquote – “I believe because it's absurd”?

4.  The big news this year is that the Ayn Rand Institute is moving from California to Austin, Texas, minutes away from the University of Texas at Austin.  The ARI has purchased the land and will construct an Ayn Rand Center and an Ayn Rand University campus.  I don’t know if there is a backstory here, other than the ARI’s major donor lives in Austin and the ARI funds some professorships at UT-Austin.