The Struggle of Gender Identification


As the third-wave feminism and LGBTQ movements sweep across America and other (mostly first-world) countries, gender has become a topic of debate. Alas, the foundation of the human race and its growth has become an increasingly confusing topic to the youth of 21st century. With talk of the perceived “63 genders,” a popular hashtag among radical liberals and third-wave feminists on social media, speculators have been questioning their own identities, their views on the liberal movements, and the true meaning of gender. However, gender is not as complex as it has come to seem in modern society; in fact, there are only two true genders.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, gender can refer to biological sex or “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.”

Those supporting the liberal movement completely ignore the first definition of biological sex, claim that the “behavioral, cultural, and psychological” traits mentioned in the second definition are subjective, and call for numerous genders beyond the traditional male/female sexes in order to accommodate each person’s individuality and personality.
However, when gender branches into narrower categories than the general biological sex of each individual, the situation can quickly get out of hand. The log of the “63 genders” lists a different gender based on the sexual preference, physical appearance, and personality traits of the person; as the definitions and options for each of these classifying categories are also broadened by radical liberals, the number of genders grows and updates with each new idea. These specifications for gender cause the list to change constantly as society and its views change over time, meaning that one’s gender will change along with the list. Gender identification would also be much more difficult to discern if one did not have extensive knowledge regarding each different gender.

When confronted with the scientific aspect of the debate, especially the presence or absence of a penis or vagina on one’s body, a liberal spectator may offer the response that “there are also people with indeterminate genders, such as micro-penises, macro-clitorises, no vagina and no penis and other not-frequently-occurring but still natural combinations” (63 Genders, 2000). Thus, in the eyes of the far-left radicals, there should be a distinct gender for each of these.

If there were a gender for each of the aforementioned genital disfigurations (and many more), there would be so many categories of people that there could be no clear classification of people, and the absence of social roles or conformity within any group would cause chaos as each small community becomes increasingly separated.

The connection that has been made between genital disfigurations and gender could lead to the increased subjectivity and unnecessarily extensive categorization of other social classifications. If the same logic were used in relation to race, then everyone with a different physical disfiguration would be classified as a different race. Amputees, people with skin conditions, those who are paralyzed or born with certain unique facial features, and others would each become a different race, distorting society’s views of culture, race, and history. This would increase identity crises among youth and elders alike, spreading confusion and essentially destroying the ideologies that bind people together. The idea of two genders, male and female, is universal, as is that of race.

Modern left-wing radicals have been pursuing an agenda to push all the norms of society off of a cliff as an attempt to convince the remaining people that they have finally achieved freedom and acceptance by society; however, society will have been destroyed along with all of its “outdated” ideals of gender. The remaining “gender fluid” and otherwise nonsensical humans who would claim victory would simply find themselves in a world without given purpose, function, or true identity. For those who have forgotten basic biological principles, each organism has its own niche, or function, within its ecosystem and society, and when the organisms’ niches overlap or cease to exist, the whole ecosystem is affected negatively.