The Inalienable Right Our Governments Fear

In a recent address, Pope Francis called "gender ideology" "the ugliest danger” of our time. The Pope did not define "gender ideology," nor did he explain in detail why expressing gender is dangerous.

In the US government, conservatives fight for legislation to define identity purely in physical - and inaccurate - terms. They speak of "gender ideology" as an organized attack on humanity.

Liberal commentary, however, is equally devoid of a rational argument. Liberal supporters are keen to wear Ally pins on their lapels, but seem unable to counter misinformation used to justify legislation that restricts personal expression. Even more concerning, liberals seem unable to oppose legislation that clearly violates US political philosophy.

Is an argument in support of the LGBTQ community difficult to devise? Is an argument of "gender ideology" easy to shout, but difficult to combat?

The answer is: no.

Instead, I believe our government doesn't want to have this conversation at all. I believe our government fears a constituency allowed to think for themselves. A constituency empowered to express who we are and what we truly believe would be free of the control our government enjoys.

Our government fears us being content. A content constituency doesn't need an active government.

Defining gender ideology

An ideology is "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based." An ideology is an organized group of thought, a definition of an agenda, a call to action. But my work - and that of many gender theorists - consistently characterize gender as individual expression.

The message of individual expression is delivered differently by different theories - whether to locate gender in genetics, a combination of physical characteristics and social role, or purely performance of a social role. My own theory places gender as an ongoing process of negotiation between an origin of identity and the social environment.

Gender is a complex of physical, cognitive, behavioral, and spiritual components. It is by definition individual. It is our personal expression of identity in our lives. Gender could not be an ideology, which requires conformity of thought within a group. The phrase "gender ideology" is an oxymoron (and some would contend devised by morons).

A body of law in which identity is protected for all requires only three premises. It must be based on individual ownership of our physical existence. It must protect our physical existence and property from harm or seizure by others. It must respect our individual process of discovering and manifesting our personal expression.

But wait...this sounds familiar: the freedom to our process of identity entails the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Life

The first premise of the freedom to establish identity is the human right to life. Much has been written about the point in time at which this right begins. I will not offer my opinion here. Instead, my discussion focuses on a human already capable of making a choice regarding their existence.

The right to life guarantees individual ownership of our physical existence. It implies freedom from fear of being killed by a government or fellow citizens in everyday existence. The right to life is the foundation of any other right - we must know our lives are inviolable. We must know we are free to act as we choose, to act in our own self-interest. But we must be free to act.

Note I did not write in our best interest. The search for identity requires experience. We must observe activities available to us and choose those among them that interest us. The first requirement to discovering our identity is the agency of choice in our own lives.

In my theory of gender, the right to life is the recognition each of us possesses an origin of identity. That is, each of us possesses a set of motivations and desires that we know, even if we do not know why we know them. The right to life implies the origin of identity belongs to us alone, and only we can express its motivations and desires.

Liberty

The second premise of the freedom to establish identity is the human right to liberty. When we are assured of our agency of choice - our right to life - we are capable of acting on our behalf to decide how to express our complex of physical, cognitive, behavioral, and spiritual characteristics.

The right to liberty protects our physical existence and property from harm or seizure by others, regardless of the choices we make. We decide on our own what motivates us, what we desire, and what we believe without fear of repercussion. The results of our choices - whether personal expression or physical possession - are protected from the rest of the social environment.

Our decisions, of course, must not interfere with the right of each other human to make their choices. That is, we act within a social environment, and the dance of interactions is the effect of liberty for all members.

In my theory of gender, the right to liberty is the recognition each of us operates within a social environment that affects how our origin of identity will be expressed. That is, our origin of identity is not dissolute, but operates within context of the norms in our social environment. The right to liberty implies the origin of identity recognizes itself in all humans.

The pursuit of happiness

The final premise of the freedom to establish identity is the human right to the pursuit of happiness. When we are assured of our agency of choice and know our choices will be recognized by the social environment, we may enact those choices in our lives. That is, what we discover interests us may be manifested as part of our complex of physical, cognitive, behavioral, and spiritual characteristics.

The right to the pursuit of happiness demands respect for our individual process of discovering and manifesting our personal expression. The results of our choices - whether truly in our best interest or not - belong to us. We decide them. We dispose of them.

The social environment affects our choices through application of social norms, including those norms that - when violated - cause gender dysphoria. We are not completely unrestrained in our choices, yet choices that disregard social norms allow for evolution of the society, as observed across human history.

In my theory of gender, the right to the pursuit of happiness is freedom to manifest who we are in our lives. That is, our origin of identity, within context of our social environment, engages in an ongoing process of negotiation to express who we are day by day. The right to the pursuit of happiness implies that individual expression of each human is a natural and universal process.

A content constituency

Each human undergoes a process of identity and gender. None escapes the process; it is part of being human. And yet conservative rhetoric considers personal expression an attack on the continued viability of our country. Liberal rhetoric appears impotent to mitigate the empty argument of "gender ideology."

Is my personal expression dangerous? Are you dangerous? What do our leaders fear? Do they fear a constituency that thinks on its own? Is our discovery of who we are and its manifestation in our world a threat to a governing body growing increasingly out of touch?

I believe the answer is yes.

Rather than engage in productive conversation about identity and its critical impact on our society's continued existence, both parties shout the political equivalent of "Oh, yeah?" All of society loses that argument.

I am not a threat to the world. I speak a message of peace, unity, and equality. I speak the message written (albeit clumsily) in the Declaration of Independence that underlies the political philosophy of the United States of America.

And I now speak the government's message clear - they attempt to control us. "Gender ideology" is only a smoke screen for a failing government.

If I discover my identity, and you discover your identity, together we might recognize our government is unconcerned with both of us. We might notice a steadily decreasing standard of living. We might notice a steadily increasing gap between the people in power and the rest of us. And then we might take action to reject politics that favor us sitting down and shutting up.

I will not sit down or shut up. I am not a subject. I am human.

Give me back the promise of my country.