Immutability and Parsimony

If you have read or followed this blog, you've seen my piece on Ockham’s razor and parsimony. If you also study any kind of critical thinking or philosophy, you'll also know one should be aware of the far reaching applications of Ockham’s razor and how to look out for parsimonious situations that can be shaved by it. I will propose another one not often thought of in modern thought.

It seems to be a somewhat cause celebre these days to support absolute rights to everything, for everyone. Whether or not these rights are justified or even exist is an entirely different discussion even than what these rights apply to. What am I speaking of? I speak of the movement to grant absolute rights in almost all manners, and prohibit discrimination of any kind, to something known as Immutable characteristics.

An Immutable characteristic is a characteristic that cannot be changed through act of will. Note that this doesn't mean the characteristic cannot be changed, just that it cannot be changed by an act of will, no matter how great. Consider one’s hair color. This is not an immutable  characteristic for you might change your hair color through dying it. By simply willing to do so and having the appropriate means, this characteristic can be changed and thus bears no special status. There’s not a  “blue hair history month” or a “blue hair awareness month” because its not an immutable characteristic. But why do these characteristics receive such special treatment?

The logic behind creating protected classes based on immutable characteristics is that someone shouldn't be punished for what they can’t change. The most commonly agreed on immutable characteristics are: Age, Gender, race, and sexual orientation. There seems to be another that is being called an immutable characteristic that I feel creates parsimonious distinctions and is also an incoherent concept in itself. That is the characteristic known as Gender identity.

The concept of gender identity holds that a person has an identity based in a gender concept that itself is immutable. That is to say, someone ‘feels’ or identifies themselves with a certain gender and this identity is an immutable characteristic. Someone who has such an identity might say “I might be a man, but I’m a woman on the inside” this is often used to justify and build support for Transgender operations and the transgender community in general. The focus of my analysis will not be on the rightness or wrongness of this concept but rather its coherency and potential parsimonious distinctions.

First let us consider the incoherence of gender identity. A person’s gender, by definition, is a physical distinction. There’s no reason to think any ‘ insideness’ or personality traits must be held by a specific gender. What makes you a man is your physical body, what makes you a woman is your physical body. Gender is inherently a physical distinction and should only be viewed through physical concerns. The fact that you like to wear sequins dresses and high heels doesn't make you a woman. Having a uterus does. So to this end I find the concept of gender identity to be incoherent. You can’t be a man but a “woman on the inside” because nothing about your inside makes you a woman. Only the characteristics of your outside make you one. Thusly, transgender surgery should be seen as a purely elective procedure owing none of its reasons to an immutable characteristic.

Secondly, We should address the issue of parsimonious distinctions. Based partly in the fact that gender is a strictly physical trait just like, height and proportions, the concept of gender identity can be considered parsimonious. That is to say, we could describe a person equally or more accurately by simply ignoring there gender identity or ‘shaving it away’ with Ockham’s razor. Suppose someone said “I’m a man but I feel like a woman on the inside” If I then said “ You're a man” would I be wrong? You might say this doesn't solve the problem of feeling like a woman. I would say perhaps you're correct, but the fact remains that they are a man, adding the way they feel on the inside doesn't change that so such a distinction is parsimonious. They might feel that way, but that characteristic in know way exists actionably than any other feeling and thus should not be a protected class. There is also the problem that gender identity combines even more parsimoniously with the other immutable characteristics. Consider the characteristic of Sexual orientation. If we take this characteristic to be immutable then we create a parsimonious situation when combined with gender identity. Suppose I say that “I’m a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body”.  How is that any different than a straight man? Why even draw that distinction? The simple answer is obviously that such a distinction does not exist in any way, homosexual or not. Some lesbian women even feel that they are “a man trapped in a woman’s body” such that they want to become a man. If I’m a lesbian woman trapped in a man’s body aren't I already there? The idea becomes absurd at this point.

So we have seen how the concept of Gender identity is incoherent and parsimonious. This gives us firm justification for rejecting as an immutable characteristic and as a characteristic in general.