Human Dignity Doesn’t Need a Makeover
Croaky's Conservative Case Against The Cult of Transformation
Born This Way—Lets Mean It
I speak on this a lot, but it’s always worth going back to First Principles and can’t be said enough: If we could distill conservatism into a single unyielding principle, it would be the defense of human dignity. Human dignity is the cornerstone upon which all other values and conservative principles and ideals are built—the acknowledgment that every individual, regardless of age, creed, sex or station, possesses inherent worth. This concept as I also often bring up comes in large part due to the Judeo-Christian values we’ve inherited in our society that fundamentally guide our perspective on the issue. You can’t get more dignified than being made in God’s own image after all. As an atheist I still have to ground myself to this idea because it is the basis of all that is good in our nation and society. This is why it is the First Principle from which our understanding of justice, liberty, and community flows. Without it, we are left with nothing but the empty machinery of a society that tolerates itself but never truly values its members and falls into the nihilistic view of transactional and utilitarian politics and treating people like algorithms.
This principle is not an abstraction. It is why conservatives inherently oppose the unchecked power of the state, the tyranny of the mob, and yes, even the tyranny of ideologies that seek to upend the very foundation of our humanity and even our our understanding of it. Enter transgender ideology—or, more accurately, its modern radicalized populist manifestation—which demands that we view human dignity not as inherent, but as mutable, contingent on one’s ability to transform into something "better."
To be clear, the conservative critique is not aimed at transgender individuals themselves. Obviously there are many who attack the concept of a transgender individual as an affront itself and an attack on culture and norms, but this isn’t about the individuals who themselves are caught up in a societal pressure game. On the contrary the conservative critique is rooted in compassion for those swept up in a movement that encourages self-rejection as a path to fulfillment. Conservatism objects to the ideology because it tells people—especially vulnerable children—that there is something fundamentally wrong with them as they are. This is not an affirmation of dignity; it’s its outright denial.
The Tyranny of Transformation
Consider for a moment what this ideology asks of its adherents. It begins by planting the seed of doubt: "Are you sure you are truly who you think you are?" It then offers a solution so seductive it almost seems cruel: "If you change, you’ll be happy." And here is where the ideology commits its most egregious affront against human dignity—it demands transformation as a condition of worthiness. This itself attacks the idea of human dignity because it’s implying that people need to change who they are fundamentally for the mere act of living a happy life.
Children, of course, are the most tragic victims of this mindset. Childhood is a time of flux, a chaotic whirlwind of questions and insecurities. To introduce into this maelstrom the notion that their very being might be “incorrect” is to play a dangerous, irresponsible and even evil game. Children are told that their discomfort is not a normal part of growing up but evidence of a deeper "misalignment" that can only be corrected through irreversible interventions. It is as if the ideology were written by the same marketers who sell anti-aging creams—preying on insecurity, promising transformation, and delivering what one can only describe as lasting damage. Imagine if the argument was that a black child was being told he was born in the wrong body and that he should seek therapies that will aid him in becoming a white child. Offering different cocktails and surgeries that could make him or her whiter, change their facial features or their hair to appear white. Remember too that race is more fluid and socially constructed than biological sex. Think of how Rachel Dolezal is easily mocked for having made herself into a “black woman” and lived the life as one for something as insignificant as identifying as another race which would be harder to determine than determining whether she was woman or man. As a matter of fact lets explore this further.
The Rachel Doelzal Paradox
When I say that race is a fluid and socially constructed category I mean that it is shaped by historical, cultural, and political contexts and has no consistent biological basis with definitions that have varied across time and societies. In contrast, biological sex is fixed and rooted in observable physical traits like chromosomes and anatomy, and less subject to reinterpretation by social forces. Racial categories have shifted throughout history, often reflecting the prejudices and power dynamics of the time. Yet, even with this fluidity, we instinctively reject the notion that someone can truly "change" their race, let alone that they should feel compelled to do so because of societal pressures or personal insecurities.
I gave the Rachel Dolezal example because it’s one I use on this subject a lot. Dolezal who rebranded herself as a black woman and lived as such for years even being a leader of her local NAACP chapter in Spokane Washington. Her actions sparked widespread ridicule—not because she embraced aspects of black culture, but because she claimed an identity that most viewed as biologically and historically grounded. Her story reveals a cultural boundary: while we might celebrate someone appreciating another culture, we balk at the idea of someone claiming that identity that as their own simply because they prefer it.
Yet, when it comes to gender, a far more biologically rooted aspect of identity, we are told that not only is change possible, but that affirming such changes is a moral imperative. This inconsistency is not a triumph of enlightenment; it’s a profound societal confusion. One that I would argue comes from the best of intentions and promoting inclusivity, but causes the worst of results.
The Dignity of the Body
The hypothetical black child I mentioned earlier underscores a core conservative principle: that human dignity requires affirming the inherent worth of the body as it is. Telling a child that they were "born in the wrong body" is not an affirmation of their identity; it is an invitation to self-rejection. Just as we would recoil at the idea of encouraging racial reassignment to align with some internalized ideal, so too should we question the wisdom—and ethics—of pushing children toward irreversible interventions to "correct" their gender.
Race and gender both carry profound cultural and personal significance, but they are not purely constructs to be redefined at will. Gender is rooted in biological realities that cannot be erased by social trends, medical procedures or personal preferences. And in the same way man of us would view it as dehumanizing to tell a child to alter their race to fit societal expectations, it is equally dehumanizing to encourage them to reject their biological sex in favor of an idealized identity.