No one can choose to be taller

No one can choose to be taller

Society cannot allow total freedom to choose.

However appealing it is, to welcome the notion of being free to choose our gender, we have to face the reality that this has limits. Gender is both a mental, emotional, and physical concept.

Gender is a mental “state,” but it is also a physical one. Gender has, in the common acceptance of the meaning of the word, to be a state of body and of mind. The state of mind is flexible, we all vary our state of mind constantly, but the physical state is not so variable. If we lose a finger, this is a physical state. We cannot replace the finger by changing our state of mind and wishing it to re-grow. If our mind makes us wish to choose an alternative physical characteristic this does not cause the physical body to alter to meet that characteristic.

The dictionary definition of gender is—any of the categories such as masculine, feminine, neuter, or common, within such a set. The state of being male female or neuter.

It is a very recent concept that gender can be fluid, that it can change, that we are free to choose at any particular time which gender we are. Like all freedoms such a choice has both a cost and limits. In a perfect world of harmony and total universal co-existence; the cost may be low, but we do not live in a perfect world. Exploitation, manipulation, driven self-interest, perversion , greed, and uncontrolled lust, all exist. To protect each other from these human vices, we have rules and society norms, which limit freedom. Respect for life, privacy and well-being is maintained by the rules each society develops. These rules protect us, but they limit the freedom to disregard them. We are not free to kill those who we disagree with, simply because of that disagreement.

I am 5 feet 4 inches tall and now 80 years old. No matter what level of self-belief that I apply-- wanting to be, or believing that I am, 6 feet tall and 40 years old- does not actually change the facts. I still remain my age and will not be any taller. I may colour my hair to match a raven’s wing, I will look different, but I will not BE different.

About 30 years ago, long before the concept of self-identifying your gender became a fashionable concept; I worked alongside an intelligent, kindly, and entirely worthwhile person who dressed as a female yet was a biological male. In private conversation she said that she knew even if she had surgery, she would be a mutilated male. She may look female but could never be what a born woman is. A very sad conversation and a very sad lady; but one accepting a reality.

Anyone can self-identify as something other than they are; BUT that does not change who or what that are. Actors on stage and film are different characters with personalities differing from their actual ones BUT this does not change who or what they are in reality. No thinking person would ever claim that the portrayal is the real nature of the actor. They may have some of the traits portrayed, but that does not change the fact that the actor is playing a part.

Males self-identifying as female to gain entry to female showers, may—or may not- be an “urban myth” but the possibility exists if the law is changed to allows this.

A confidence trickster can self-identify as an honest person. How else could they deceive? This does not make them an honest person. The law cannot ignore their crimes because they claim to be honest.

A human with male genitalia can self-identify as a woman, but the law cannot recognise this as a valid reason for allowing this human to use female only facilities, without putting the female population at risk of harm.

A drug dealer can self-identify as an upright member of the community, but the law cannot recognise this as a valid reason to leave the crimes unpunished.

Accepting any self-identification without factual, evidence and physical conformation is a recipe for disaster.

Sympathy for an individual who has internal conflicting or confused mental to physical relationships within their own wholistic person, cannot lead to restriction on what the majority of people consider necessary for social cohesion. Making the sympathy for an individual the dominant factor in how society controls itself, can only lead to anarchy and the destruction of democratic governance. Conflict between the physical reality and the mental reality, within the same person, is not common but it does occur more often than most people realise. The mental reality is fluid, but the physical reality is not. Social acceptance of such conflict, within the individual, can be encouraged but for the reasons outlined above, the laws and rules that protect society from the vices and manipulation used by the antisocial few; cannot be discarded.