When Kentaji Brown Jackson refused to define what a woman was, it perfectly illustrated my philosophy regarding mankind’s relationship to the world. That ongoing theme, a concept I live by, is, we humans are merely coping with the fact of life. We tend to regard ourselves as being more than simply a species amongst others, coping with the world’s circumstances. Being anything more than that is nothing more than a human concept that changes our outlook on the point I just made but materially changes nothing.
It is an absolute fact that humans come out in two different forms. To cope with this truth, we humans created the intellectual derivatives, “man” and “woman,” which helps us guide our collective minds to the mutually established truth of humanity’s two forms. However, before humans had languages to communicate the idea of gender, man and woman functioned together and, with the utmost proficiency, worked within the framework of male-hood and female-hood to continue the human species. In other words, without the titles, the fact of male and female existence worked just as well as with. The titles are merely for us to mentally cope with them.
Woman, man, female, male, his, her and the many abstractions we use to intellectually organize life’s phenomena are just that, abstractions. We do not bring them into existence by labeling them so America’s current debate on gender is a debate of titles, not truths. I’ve pointed out many times that Western society erroneously prides itself on its myriad of confusing laws, sub-laws, sections and clauses. It regards these wordy abstractions of right and wrong as mankind’s greatest innovation. They’re not! They are the result of scarcity placing society’s rules under unceasing stress, resulting in those rules being constantly litigated; Europeans in their respective societies couldn’t work together so they had to mechanize their cohesiveness through abstracted concepts of right and wrong. My more detailed theory on this can be found here. But in short, scarcity causes members of a society to find ways to subvert society’s rules and in the course, draw out and litigate the nuances that hold those rules in place. This is why the penal code needs paragraphs of explanation to capture the wrongfulness of killing another human. Well, today America’s experiencing the rule of gender coming under similar stress that “thou shall not kill” experienced millennia ago. What people don’t realize is the established terms, “woman” and “man” and the social roles assigned to them only exist due to tacit agreement amongst the populace. If enough of the population decides not to consent to those terms, the words themselves lose their value.
The stresses of scarcity caused by central banking are changing gender roles. While I respect those who feel people are either born gay or not, I don’t operate from that mindset. I should however, mention here that I also agree that some people can be born gay. I feel that humans are hardwired to procreate through sex. That sexual energy has to be directed towards other humans and when a scarcity leaves a dearth of available labor fruits (compensation for labor), men can’t provide and women hold out for the limited supply of men who can. The inevitable result will be 
a portion of the male population needing an outlet for their sexual energy and men directing that sexual energy towards other men. Gay culture in San Francisco began with straight men of the gold rush experiencing a dearth of women and turning to each other. Scarcity is also why European history is awash in homosexuality and pedophilia and African history isn’t.
Homosexuality is a fact of Western culture and since America has thus far failed to be a sufficient platform where any hard working person can prosper, the gay population has grown and will continue to gain political sway. As gay political power grows, their ability to question and subsequently change social norms increases, which leads us to today. As said before, tacit agreement, not “fact,” holds titles like “woman” and “man” in place. Gay people are opting out of this agreement, which places the whole “man”/”woman” intellectual system in jeopardy.
It has taken a lot of adapting for me accommodate the fact of homosexuality. I’m from the ‘hood and come from what would today be considered a homophobic community and household. This doesn’t mean we were hostile towards gay people. We had gay neighbors and family members that we loved and protected. We also had, although very few, transsexual neighbors and friends. Many if not most Black churches have gay choir directors too. But back in the day, gay people in the ‘hood didn’t generally live out. They also didn’t have to hide their sexuality. There was an unspoken agreement that they would be loved and protected amongst the standard community as long as they didn’t pursue a larger share of it. We knew our gay neighbors were gay and that some of their same sex friends were lovers. Transsexuals typically dressed in their biological gender during the day and saved their social gender clothing for when they were in their own social setting. Today this is considered homophobic and communities are shunned for denying gay people admittance to their social settings. Working in Hollywood changed my outlook on homosexuality. Working closely with so many gay people caused me to wholeheartedly make efforts to eliminate my homophobia. I have trouble on set with pronouns because I’m hardwired to distinguish whom I can procreate with and whom I can’t. I’m not willing to make that a fluid concept in my mind. I take cares to call trans men, “men” and trans women, “women” but I’m not perfect with it and will make mistakes. Today, I fight for gay rights and it’s the reason I’m writing this blog post. Simply giving gay people their way in the gender debate means much of society will just sit in wait for the first opportunity to take their rights back. This is exactly what happened with Roe v Wade. Bad faith intercourse between Americans is not good for America or relations between its gay and straight citizens.
So in true Western fashion, I propose splitting our notion of gender into two categories, social and biological. Rather than forcing people to simply pretend biological men are women and vice versa, I think separating the social and biological can allow people to call biological males but social women, “women,” and biological women but social men, “men.” It also doesn’t take away from a person’s identity when someone refers to biological males as biologically male. By subdividing gender, we give Trans Americans the ability to be recognized for their social roles, while also giving others the opportunity to refer to them by their biological gender.
The rule of gender is under stress, each side is sticking to their guns and it’s making our nation weaker. By oppressing gay people, we put the previously obvious rule of gender under stress and now talk shows and news reports are full of professionals, from news reporters and politicians to gay rights advocates enforcing the unlitigated nuances of the titles we assign to gender, each side, in bad faith, strategically only pointing out the nuance that supports their case. The truths about gender are as infinite as the ways humans can view them. Only, and I mean only, when you can get agreement from a majority of a society’s members, can titles like “woman” and “man” reign with organic impunity.