Letter from Christian Godin, philosopher, to Céline Folliot, Thursday, January 9, 2025
Trad. DeepL-ChatCPT
Dear Ms. Folliot,
The review you recently wrote (published in Le Monde on January 8) about Maud Royer’s book, Le Lobby transphobe, has prompted me to share a number of observations with you, which I hope you will take into consideration.
First of all, while a review is expected to offer a minimum of critical analysis, yours takes the form of a certificate of approval, repeating the terms of the book without any critical distance.
“Lobby”: Does it only exist on the side of critics and opponents of trans activism, while the latter alone is granted the privilege of defending a “cause” without being labeled a lobby, a term intended to arouse suspicion?
“Transphobe,” “moral panic”: So, critics and opponents of the trans-identity cause are deemed incapable of thinking, reflecting, or arguing. They are, according to this narrative, merely driven by irrational emotions (phobia, fear). But, dear Ms. Folliot, where does knowledge truly lie? Is it on the side of those who, in one sweeping move, reject biology, psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and history in the name of a Will elevated to an absolute, encouraging individuals to cling to their infantile desire for omnipotence? Or is it on the side of those who believe that when children and adolescents express an exorbitant desire to “change sex” (as though such a thing were possible!), these sciences have a role to play?
Yes, even if this represents a narcissistic wound for those who believe their demand has no condition other than itself and no consequence beyond its own satisfaction, Nature exists, whether we like it or not. Homo sapiens belongs to the primate family and, like nearly all animals and plants, is a sexed species. Contrary to the mantra endlessly repeated by trans activism—one that you appear to endorse—sex is not “assigned” at birth but observed. We do not assign a penis or a vulva, nor do we assign X or Y chromosomes to an individual. We assign individuals to residence, but sex is not a residence.
Those who sort chicks into males and females do not “assign” them a sex. When paleontologists discover the bones of one of our distant ancestors and can determine whether the bone belonged to a man or a woman, they are not assigning sex either. The gender theory that inspires transactivist ideology is to anthropology what the phlogiston theory was to physics.
“Conservatives,” “reactionaries”: Unable to counter arguments with arguments, ideologues resort only to labeling, stigmatizing, and insulting, thus demonstrating their inability to engage in any form of dialogue (the number of blocked debates on the issue of trans identity is now beyond counting). First, one must choose between the two: while a conservative seeks to preserve the current state of affairs, a reactionary wants to return to a past state.
Moreover, since they share the characteristic of not being progressives, let us ask ourselves what it means to be progressive today. Is it progressive to accept that young people are irreversibly harmed in their physical integrity and rendered dependent on medical and pharmaceutical treatments for life? If this is what you call new rights, I gladly leave them to you. Is it progressive to align with neoliberal individualism, which tends to transform the body, as capitalism does with all realities, into capital and merchandise? Were those in the United States and Sweden at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries who implemented eugenics policies progressive? (Not wanting to risk invoking Godwin’s law, I deliberately refrain from referencing the Nazis.) And, as a corollary, were those who opposed such policies reactionary?
When the large-scale scandal of surgeries and treatments performed on the bodies of physically healthy but psychologically troubled young people inevitably breaks—just as the pedophilia scandal eventually broke, albeit with a delay (which some intellectuals, and not minor ones, justified with all sorts of noble reasons)—the questions of complicity and complacency will inevitably arise. At that time, Maud Royer’s book may be unearthed, among many others, and, though I do not wish it upon you, so might your review.
Whether or not you read this letter is of little importance to me; others will.
Kind regards, and with my best wishes,
Christian Godin (philosopher).
Comments