(Opinion) Only 2 Genders- Why The Authoritarians Don’t Want To Go Beyond Binary?

Ah, the binary gender system, humanity’s crowning achievement in organizing the chaos of existence. For centuries, we have thrived—or so the argument goes—under the simple and straightforward idea that there are exactly two genders: male and female. What a relief to know that life can be neatly packaged into these two tidy boxes, right?
Yet here we are, in the modern age, entertaining the scandalous notion that gender might actually be more complex than what our kindergarten biology books taught us. Clearly, chaos is just around the corner. Let us explore why the two-gender model is the last bastion of societal order and why deviating from it might just send us spiraling into “dark mode”, as perceived by the ‘Authoritarians’!
The Almighty Basis for Two Genders
First, let’s marvel at the elegant simplicity of the binary gender framework, rooted in the unshakable truth of biology. Chromosomes—XX for women, XY for men—tell us everything we need to know about who we are. Forget the 1.7% of the population born intersex (BBC, 2016). Those anomalies are mere statistical blips, much like typos in a masterpiece of literature. Why complicate things with these outliers when we have a beautifully symmetrical system to uphold?
And who could forget the current U.S. President Donald Trump, the valiant defender of the binary model? Trump proposed policies that would define gender strictly based on biological sex, bringing us back to the “good old days” when things were simpler and no one dared question whether male and female were the only options. Supporters of such policies argue that this clarity is essential for smooth administrative processes. After all, who has the time to add more checkboxes to forms?
Biological and Scientific Perfection
Let’s talk science—or at least the convenient bits of it. Advocates of the two-gender system love to remind us that traditional gender roles are “hardwired” into our DNA. Evolutionary biology has blessed men with strength and women with the miraculous ability to multitask while cooking dinner. Clearly, these distinctions are the bedrock of modern civilization. Forget that pesky research about hormonal and neurological overlaps or the fact that humans are far more complex than binary categories. Complexity, after all, is overrated.
And let’s not dwell on intersex individuals who disrupt the neat male/female dichotomy. Surely they’ll understand that they’re just exceptions to the rule. It’s not like their existence raises profound questions about the oversimplification of gender. Instead, we can collectively agree to tuck these inconvenient truths under the rug and carry on.
The Horrors of Expanding Gender Categories
Imagine the audacity of expanding gender categories beyond male and female. The sheer nerve! Critics argue that such an approach would lead to “logistical nightmares,” like updating public restroom signs or adding extra fields to official documents. Think of the poor data analysts who would have to adjust spreadsheets! Surely, society cannot bear such an unbearable burden.
The world of sports, too, is under siege. Transgender athletes competing in categories aligned with their gender identity? Scandalous. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill banning transgender women from participating in women’s sports, citing concerns about “fairness” and “integrity”. Never mind that sports are already rife with inequalities—wealth disparities, access to training, and varying physical abilities. Clearly, the real threat is transgender inclusion, forget the harrassment of sports persons!
Legal Simplicity: A Noble Cause
Supporters of the binary framework often argue that policies defining gender as male or female provide a clear and consistent foundation for legal and administrative systems. Consider the joy of knowing that healthcare services, prison accommodations, and other gender-specific programs are straightforward and easy to manage. Why add layers of complexity when we could simply ignore the existence of nonbinary and transgender individuals? After all, simplicity is king.
Articles like “The Idea That Gender Is a Spectrum Is a New Gender Prison” go even further, warning us that acknowledging a spectrum could lead to new “constraints.” Because, apparently, allowing people to define their own identities is far more oppressive than forcing them into predefined boxes.
The Cultural Perspective: Tradition Above All
Let’s not forget the cultural and religious roots of the binary system. For centuries, many societies have clung to the belief that gender roles are divinely ordained. Men are hunters, women are gatherers, and any deviation from this divine plan is surely a harbinger of doom. The binary system is essential, we are told, for preserving family structures and moral values. Who needs progress when we have tradition?
Of course, this perspective conveniently ignores the fact that many cultures have long recognized nonbinary and third-gender identities. The hijra community of South Asia, Two-Spirit individuals among Native American tribes, and the fa’afafine of Samoa have all existed for centuries. But let’s not allow historical facts to get in the way of a good argument. Clearly, these cultures were just confused.
Potential “Disasters” of a Spectrum Model
Expanding gender recognition could “destabilize” key societal institutions, critics warn. Healthcare systems, for example, would need to train providers to address the unique needs of transgender and nonbinary individuals. The horror! Imagine spending resources to ensure that everyone receives appropriate medical care. What a travesty that would be.
In education, gender-inclusive policies like pronoun usage and all-gender restrooms have sparked debates about parental rights. Critics claim that teaching children about gender diversity will confuse them. Because clearly, children are incapable of understanding concepts like empathy or individuality. Let’s protect their “innocence” by shielding them from reality.
Simplicity and Stability: The Holy Grail
Ah, simplicity. Supporters of the binary system cling to it as if their lives depend on it. They argue that respecting diverse pronouns or recognizing multiple gender identities will create chaos in workplaces and social settings. Heaven forbid we make the slightest effort to accommodate others.
Proponents also argue that adhering to a binary framework ensures consistency in legal contexts. Determining eligibility for gender-specific scholarships or sports competitions becomes so much easier when we pretend that gender is binary. Efficiency at the cost of inclusivity? Sounds like a fair trade.
Striking a Balance: The Sarcastic Solution
But wait, what if there were a way to balance simplicity and inclusivity? What if we could recognize gender diversity without abandoning traditional structures entirely? Surely that’s too radical an idea. After all, why compromise when you can cling to outdated norms and pretend they’re universal truths?
Ending With The Inevitable Descent into Chaos…
In conclusion, it is absolutely vital to maintain the two-gender model, lest we descend into a “dark mode” of societal complexity and endless debates. Why bother embracing the rich diversity of human experience when we can double down on simplicity and ignore inconvenient realities? After all, who needs progress when we have tradition, efficiency, and the comforting illusion of stability?
So let’s raise a toast to the binary system and its champions. May their steadfast resistance to change remind us all that clinging to outdated ideas is always easier than facing the complexities of the modern world. Bravo!