Instead of lagging behind the inexorable march of Progress, as too many Christians did on the issue of same-sex marriage, maybe it’s time to jump on board the train to Transgendia. In this happy land, unfettered by “bios” or “logos,” anyone, with any genitals or genes, can identify as a “woman.” Whatever that means. Anyone who wishes can use women’s restrooms, lounge in their locker rooms, and attend women’s colleges. The same is true for men’s facilities, of course, since in the words of Transgendia’s founding father, Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Heaven help you if you insist that sex means anything more, because no one else is going to. Humpty’s enforcers are many, and mighty: Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, ESPN, the State of New York, the federal government; the list is long and growing. A federal court has just ruled that public schools may no longer offer separate restrooms for the sexes, because it might discriminate against those people with man parts who “identify as” women.

Humpty’s Law has already been used by a sex offender in Canada to gain access to private areas meant for women. Whenever police pestered him, he just had to mutter “I’m transgender,” and they backed quickly away — not wanting to lose their jobs and face a possible lawsuit.

The transgender claim is the ideal “Get Out of Jail, Free” card for voyeurs and would-be rapists. More than this, in the happy land of Transgendia, the phrase “I am transgendered” functions as a sort of magical incantation rendering the wielder of those words invulnerable to the objections, the rules, the norms that govern the rest of us.

Yes, this progress train rumbles right down the rabbit hole. Chains of reason fall apart. Because, you see, there is no — and in principle there never can be — an objective standard for determining whether or not a given man truly “identifies” as a woman. Can you imagine some liberal lawmakers sitting down to craft a bill that insists on set conditions for “really being trans”? Must a man wear makeup? Take hormones? Have plans for some surgery? None of that criterion-crafting would be tolerated, because it would simply be another external standard imposed upon the sovereign individual’s “inalienable” right to make up reality as s/he goes along. The Humpty Principle.

This “inalienable” right is the same one that Casey v. Planned Parenthood used to keep abortion legal. “At the heart of liberty,” wrote Justice Humpty, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” And feminists won’t stand for anyone infringing on that. They would rather that “woman” be reduced to an utterly meaningless term, and that every woman in America be deprived of her real right to privacy — to use the bathroom and change her clothes in peace, without leering perverts.

With biology thrown out as a criterion for deciding if a person is a man or a woman, we are left arguing hopelessly with Humpty or the Mad Hatter. Just watch the hopeless debate that ensued when a writer for The Federalist tried to pin down an LGBT activist on the issue.

Ask yourself: When a “transgender” activist claims to “identify” as a woman, what does that even mean? The term itself is based entirely on biology, which transgenderism negates. Remove that element, and absolutely every other meaning you’d offer is a figment, based on nothing but stereotypes. When an adult human with Y chromosomes claims to be “really” a woman, does that mean s/he:

• likes chick flicks,
• cries during arguments,
• prefers gossip to fisticuffs, and
• admits when s/he needs to ask directions?

Even listing those attributes is insulting to — guess who? Feminists. If “woman” doesn’t mean any of that, then what does it mean? The one thing it can’t mean is “one of the two sexes of the human race needed for mammalian reproduction.” So what in fact does it mean? You will never understand, unless you learn Transgendia’s language, which scholars call High Gibberish. And the best way to master a foreign tongue is through full immersion.

Christians in Transgendia

So let us render unto Humpty what is Humpty’s. The citizens of Transgendia — from Bruce Springsteen to the bathroom voyeur in Canada — speak only High Gibberish, so that’s what we must speak back to them. Here’s how to do it:

Every Christian in the West should claim to be transgender.

No, I don’t mean we should use the other sex’s bathrooms. (Ew.) But we should, each of us, announce our transgenderism on government forms, work forms, you name it, so that if we ever experience discrimination for our faith or moral views — say we lose a job — then we can file a discrimination claim and insist we were penalized for our transgender identity. Who can argue with us? How could they prove we aren’t transgender and that our views aren’t tied to our transgender identity? It’s like proving we aren’t made of Phlogiston, or that our auras are not really Elvish.

This tool should be especially helpful for white males, who are virtually the only group in America that is not a “protected class” under anti-discrimination laws. In fact, we might just use it in certain job applications, to give us a (shaven?) leg up on competitors from other “protected” groups, and a degree of job security.

I can already hear the objection: But you’re telling people to lie. No, in fact I am not. To lie is to say something meaningful that you know to be different from the truth, to someone who has a right to the information. As we have seen, the transgender claim is so arbitrary that in fact it means nothing at all. So when we make such a claim, it’s exactly as if we claimed to be “slithy toves” that “gyre and gimble in the wabe.”

I wish I’d thought of this years ago; I might have a tenured chair at Marquette University.