Sex ID should be based on biology

In a recent front page article, the mother of the boy at the center of a "transgender" controversy insists that her boy is a girl. She argues that anatomy does not determine whether a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl.

In her argument, she relies on the theory propounded in the 1970s by Dr. John Money that sexual development involves more than meets the eye.

He made a separation between sex and gender. That is, sexual identity results from genetics and physiology, while gender comes from the social construction of reality. Social construction refers to the consensus that results from the coordinated activities of important social institutions, such as courts, scientific bodies, educational institutions and media of mass communication agreeing upon what makes up reality. In a sense, society not anatomy determines the various dimensions of personality that an individual may have, including sexual identity.

But, if society determines gender, what accounts for the existence of people who deny their own sex? Does this not suggest that the social construction went horribly wrong? Does this not suggest that child-rearing, among other influences, failed to harmonize gender and sex?

The answer is obvious. The social construction of sexual identity, in recent years, has produced failures in personality development. Complicit in these failures are the institutions which directly influence children's mental health. By pretending that a boy is a girl, School District 211 makes the problem worse and creates an atmosphere which encourages the spread of the psychological disorder.

Rather, School District 211 has an obligation to create a social environment which supports a sexual identity that is consistent with the biology. That means, at least, bathrooms for boys, separate bathrooms for girls and a sexual identity based on biology.

George Kocan

Warrenville