The Woke say: a man can become pregnant and a woman can have a penis. What they want to say is this: biological facts don’t matter in determining gender identity. The only thing that matters is how the person feels: the person is a female if he feels like a female and a male if he feels like a male.

But: where does that feeling come from?

One line of thought – social constructivism – would maintain that it comes from society. They say: parents, teachers, peers, etc. expect a person to feel and think in a particular way about everything, including about himself. The person then follows these expectations, feels, thinks and also behaves in the expected ways. This line of thought implies a diminished role of biology for shaping identity. A person can have a penis but can feel and behave like a female – and thus can feel as if ‘being in the wrong body’, as some trans-sexual people say about themselves.

Another line of thought states the opposite: identity is determined to a large extent by biology. This is the traditional view, but also a view adopted by homosexual activists. These activists were fighting against religious views which saw homosexuality as a sin and demanded repentance and change of behavior. They were also fighting conservative views which maintained that homosexuality was a psychological disorder, probably a result of earlier experience, and as such, can be ‘corrected’ by, for example, psychotherapy. Understandably, homosexual activists didn’t want to be talked out of their sexual preferences, and their line of defense was that modifying homosexuality is impossible: homosexuality is deeply anchored in biology, and thus can not be eliminated by measures like psychotherapy. For society – at least for a democratic society – the only way dealing with this phenomenon was accepting it as another way of living one’s life.

So where does current woke ideology stand on this?

Check out the video below, in particular at around 11:05:

The person identifying as “non-binary” announces that gender is a social construct: the “two genders are just social constructs that we made up”, she says. At one point she questions the gender identity of the interviewer by stating that his male identity is the result of society (in the shape of a doctor at a birth clinic) having “assigned” this identity to him.

The implication is that such “made up” constructs can be changed and one can even get rid of them – through social activism, progress, education, etc.

But what does she think about her own – non-binary – gender identity? Where does it come from? If gender is a social construct – “made up” by people – isn’t her own gender also “made up”? She is hinting that, actually, maybe something like that has happened with her: she describes that she learned a lot about herself during the last 5 or so years, when she read lots of sociology and learned that gender is a social construct. This does sound like she “made up” her own gender identity after learning about modern gender theory.

So, would she accept the obvious conclusion from the “gender is (merely) a social construct” hypothesis that her own non-binariness is also merely a social construct – constructed by herself, with the help of university education? I strongly assume that she would reject applying the social constructivist hypothesis to her own identity. She obviously holds strongly to that identity, and requests others that they respect it by using the they/them pronouns when referring to her. She feels that her own identity is deeply anchored in herself and that it is not just put into her head by society as a social construct – as, according to her, it is the case with the interviewer’s male gender identity.

But then, the question is: what is so special about her gender identity that it can’t be touched, that it has to be respected without questioning? Why can’t we say the same about the male gender identity of the interviewer: why does it have to be a mere social construct, in contrast to her identity which is supposedly deeply anchored in her?

If her own gender identity is not merely a social construct, inserted into her head by society, where does it come from? The obvious alternative is: from her own body, from her own biology.