Some members of the homosexual lobby are beginning to ring the warning bells concerning the growing threat posed by “transgender” ideology. In a recent article published in New York Magazine, Andrew Sullivan, a journalist who is himself homosexual, argues that there are obvious problems with the leftist proposal to expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include protections for “transgender” persons. Sullivan notes that the proposal would redefine “sex” to include “gender identity” and defines it as “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words, the biology-based definition of sex would be thrown out in favor of a socially constructed self-definition paradigm, irrespective of biology. Sullivan pointedly observes the cultural conundrum such a redefinition would create:

And the truth is that many lesbians and gay men are quite attached to the concept of sex as a natural, biological, material thing. Yes, we are very well aware that sex can be expressed in many different ways. A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. We are men and attracted to other men. If the concept of a man is deconstructed, so that someone without a penis is a man, then homosexuality itself is deconstructed. Transgender people pose no threat to us, and the vast majority of gay men and lesbians wholeheartedly support protections for transgender people. But transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept.

And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?

As Mark Alexander wrote in “The Gender Deniers,” “There is no such thing as ‘transgendered,’ and the word itself constitutes an egregious deception. A gender-disoriented person may ‘identify’ as the other gender, but they will always be the same gender they were at conception. The notion of so-called ‘gender reassignment’ is equally fallacious.”

Thus, to hear Sullivan come to virtually the same conclusion is another marker on the road as the homosexual lobby tries to figure out what to do with the “transgendered” lobby. It is not compatible.