The one thing that seems to escape the social justice-obsessed crowd is that their recent appearance and hostile takeover of culture won’t suddenly lead to the reversal of natural biology which has been established for millions of years. The sudden declaration that Mark can be Mary if “zer” wants to be isn’t going to make Mary any less of a Mark no matter what shade of eyeshadow he applies or what appendage he chops off.

Regardless, mainstream media and activists have put such an emphasis on transgenderism that we start to believe they’re a massive group of people. They’re not. Those affected with the disorder known as “gender dysphoria” are a percentage of a percentage. So glorified, however, is the idea of transgenderism that people who don’t suffer from the disorder have begun labeling themselves as such, and the activist community even pushes it on kids to the point where they force it on them. They’ll even take your kid from you to do so if need be.

The reason they do this is that the public while tolerating transgenderism, isn’t accepting it whole hog. People are still seeing those who claim to be transgender as the sex they were born as. They can nod about how “gender” is a social construct, but when it comes down to it, it’s still a fringe idea that isn’t finding a basis in reality.

According to one researcher, this is evidenced in the dating scene where transgendered individuals are having a hard time finding romantic interests.

Writing in Psychology Today, researcher Karen L. Blaire found that only three percent of straight people would be okay with dating a trans person.

When asked why, Blaire reported that many gave responses with “dehumanizing” tones, and then proceeds to explain that dehumanization is people thinking that a trans person is still the sex they were born as:

These types of responses questioned the legitimacy of transgender and non-binary identities and took a very dehumanizing tone in referring to trans people. Finally, a minority of individuals mentioned a desire to only date people with whom they could have biologically related children, however, often these reasons were still expressed using dehumanizing language, such as saying that a trans man “was not a natural man” or a “real man” and that therefore it would not be possible to have children with him.

It’s interesting that she labels the simple acknowledgment of a person’s true biology as dehumanization, but more on that later. Blaire recommends the best course of action is to “educate” the public on what transgenderism is.

Overall, it would appear that the most important step moving forward in terms of increasing the dating prospects for transgender and non-binary individuals is improving general education about the diversity of gender identities and what each identity means. Furthermore, increasing accurate media representations of trans and non-binary people, as well as finding ways to increase contact may also serve as promising interventions, as other research has found that contact with, and education about, transgender individuals can effectively reduce transprejudice.

In other words, media narratives that push the trans message need to be crafted and spread so that acceptance of transgender people as what they say they are is more widespread.

The problem Blaire is failing to acknowledge here is that, as I noted in the first paragraph, she’s up against nature and reality itself.

A man may consider himself an ally of the transgender activist community, and echo the argument that if a person says they’re a woman when they’re biologically a man, then they’re definitely a woman. However, as Blaire’s own study concludes, more often than not, a line has to be drawn in given situations where even the ally admits realities.

In other words, let’s say a male ally may not wish to date a trans person identifying as female because he knows at his core that this person is actually a male. He’s not willing to enter into a homosexual relationship, and he’s fully aware that dating this trans person would be a homosexual act.

Normally, this would be considered a normal thing, but in the social justice world, this is considered bigotry and prejudice. Even Blaire’s description of people wishing not to date trans people out of the desire to have biological children is painted with that brush.

It’s not true at all. People wanting to have relationships with the opposite sex and conceive children is hardwired into our DNA. Trangsenderism is not. Yet she paints those who understand that on any level as a societal problem that needs to be “educated.”

That is some backward, and frankly, bizarre thinking. Pushing the idea that people putting reality first and desiring biologically driven outcomes are somehow advocating for the dehumanization of people with disorders is, to put it bluntly, pure lunacy. It is, in essence, an attack natural norms in order to promote a fantasy that has a high rate of doing harm to those who engage in it.

In short, this conclusion by Blaire is a direct denial of science.