Reality Is Not Negotiable: An Objectivist View of Gender
Facts are not subject to a vote, and they are not subject to an individual’s emotional state. For the Objectivist, the path to human flourishing is not found in the denial of the body...
Written By: Charl Heydenrych
Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is built upon the immovable foundation of the Law of Identity: A = A. In her view, reality is an objective absolute. Facts are facts, independent of any observer’s feelings, wishes, or fears. To understand how an Objectivist would approach the modern gender debate, one must start not with social science, but with metaphysics. If existence exists, then a thing is what it is; a biological organism possesses a specific nature that cannot be wished away by a feat of consciousness.
The Metaphysics of Identity
In the Objectivist framework, the “Primacy of Existence” understands that the physical world exists independently of the mind. Therefore, the biological reality of a human being – the chromosomal, hormonal, and anatomical facts that constitute “man” or “woman” – are primary. To claim that a man can become a woman, or vice versa, is to grant the mind (consciousness) the power to dictate reality to the body (existence). Rand termed this “the primacy of consciousness,” and she regarded it as the root of all philosophical error.
From this perspective, gender is not a “social construct,” but a recognition of biological identity. A man is a male of the human species; a woman is a female.
These are definitions grounded in observable, physical attributes. To deny these definitions is to abandon the cognitive tool of concept-formation, which requires that we group things based on their real, essential characteristics. If A (a male) can be B (a woman), then the Law of Identity is discarded, and human reason loses its anchor.
The Mind-Body Dichotomy
The current gender debate often rests on the idea that “gender identity” (a psychological state) is more “real” than biological sex.
Objectivism rejects the split between the mind and the body. Man is an integrated entity of a soul (consciousness), and a body. While a person may experience a psychological conflict (a feeling that their “internal” identity does not match their physical form), Objectivism would categorise this as a psychological issue, not a metaphysical one.
A person experiencing gender dysphoria is, in my view of Rand’s position, a person with a significant internal contradiction. However, the solution to a psychological contradiction is not to demand that society rewrite the laws of biology or the definitions of language. To force others to acknowledge a man as a woman is to demand that they fake their own sensory perception and betray their own rational judgment. In Objectivism, the greatest “sin” is the “blanking out” of reality; that is one’s refusal to see what is in front of one’s eyes.
Individualism and the Role of Choice
It is important to distinguish the Objectivist stance on identity from its stance on rights. Rand was a radical individualist. She believed that every adult has the absolute right to live as they choose, provided they do not initiate physical force against others.
Freedom of Action: An individual has the right to wear what they want, undergo medical procedures, and adopt any name or persona they desire.
Freedom of Association: Conversely, no individual has the right to force others to use specific pronouns or to accept their self-definition.
An Objectivist would likely view “compelled speech” (laws requiring the use of preferred pronouns) as a profound violation of individual rights. It is an attempt to use the force of the state to compel a man to lie about his own perception of A = A.
The Concept of “Gender” vs. “Sex”
Objectivists typically view the modern distinction between “sex” (biological) and “gender” (cultural) with scepticism if it is used to suggest that “gender” is the only relevant category for defining a person.
While Rand may have acknowledged that men and women have different psychological leanings (here one could note her controversial views on “hero worship” and femininity) she held that both sexes are equally capable of rationality and productive work.
However, the “gender debate” often seeks to decouple identity from biology entirely. To Rand, this would be a form of “modern-day mysticism.” Just as the medieval mystic sought to transcend the physical world through faith, the modern gender theorist seeks to transcend the physical body through “self-identification.” Both represent a flight from the responsibility of perceiving reality as it is.
Conclusion: Reality is Not Negotiable
To sum up the Objectivist position: Facts are not subject to a vote, and they are not subject to an individual’s emotional state. A man is a man because he possesses the identity of a male human being. While he is free to pursue any lifestyle he chooses, he cannot claim a right to be perceived as something he is not.
In the gender debate, Ayn Rand would likely argue that we are witnessing a rebellion against the Law of Identity. By insisting that A must be A, Objectivism provides a grounded, if uncompromising, defense of biological reality and the sovereignty of the rational mind.
For the Objectivist, the path to human flourishing is not found in the denial of the body, but in the alignment of the mind with the facts of existence.
Charl Heydenrych is a retired human resources practitioner and a libertarian.
This ignores all the evidence of psychology and depends solely on what is observed. But much of reality can't be observed. There isn't just male and female and Chromosomes show this. There is more than just xx and xy. There are multiple combinations resulting. Some change the body and some are observable only in the actions of individuals. The simple xx and xy theory has loopholes that are physical such as intersexed individuals who exhibit genitalia of both male and female.
All embryos start out female. In usual terms that embryo would develop with an sexual attractions to men and a gender identity of female. Some then develop with xy and are males, usually attracted to women and identify as men. But some of the time they develop as a combination that varies. They may be men attracted to men, women attracted to women, etch.
All of the arguments here used to be flung at gay people as well and religious fanatics still use them. But the evidence, when studied for years, started to show such attractions had a genetic factor. For instance, when one twin is gay the chances the other one will be increases above the usual numbers. It's rarer than usual but then so is having red hair.
It isn't a choice or just some "emotional state."
Transgendered identity is observable in small children long before they know anything about sexuality. It isn't a choice they make it's who they are and attempts to change it have negative results—ranging from long-term misery to suicide.
I consider myself an Objectivist and was friends with many from Rand's inner circle. Sadly the only time I saw her in person was at her funeral. The arguments used here were the same anti-gay arguments. But the main Objectivist psychology expert in Rand's circle, Dr. Branden admitted he got things wrong about gay people and he fed those errors to Ayn. I knew Nathaniel and considered him a friend. He apologized in public for getting such things wrong!
All in all I found this piece uninformed. It relies on simple explanations for complex reality. All such rules have exceptions due to the complex nature of existence.