Charlie Kirk Debates Gender Identity: Why Adding Non-Binary Options on Birth Certificates Is Morally Reprehensible
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Charlie Kirk Counsels Young Person on Gender Identity and Finding Peace in Natural Design
2:09
Charlie Kirk Confronts California Transgender Activists Threatening to Disrupt Campus Event Over Misgendering Laws
2:27
Charlie Kirk Confronts PSU Student on Tax Funding, Gender Surgery, and Feelings Versus Facts
2:38
Charlie Kirk Debates Gender Identity: Why Adding Non-Binary Options on Birth Certificates Is Morally Reprehensible
Charlie Kirk engages in a debate about gender identity, social constructs, and biological sex. While acknowledging personal freedom, Kirk argues that adding non-binary gender options on birth certificates is morally reprehensible because it adds confusion to children's development. He discusses the distinction between sex and gender, criticizes state-funded sex reassignment surgery for minors, and explains why society has a responsibility to guide children rather than increase chaos in their formative years.
The conversation begins with a fundamental question about the distinction between gender and sex. The interlocutor presents the common argument that gender is a social construct whereas sex is a biological construct. Under this framework, there would have to be only two sexes but there could be any number of genders because society determines what is acceptable as a social construct.
Charlie Kirk responds by acknowledging that just because civilizations have done something in the past doesn't make it a good idea. However, he makes clear his position: there are two sexes and two genders, and gender and sex are directly related.
Why Not Differentiate Gender from Sex?
When challenged on why he wouldn't differentiate between sex and gender—especially given the number of people advocating for multiple genders—Kirk clarifies his stance. He does believe there is more than one gender in the sense that individuals have the freedom to identify however they choose. He won't have a government agency interfere with personal choice.
However, Kirk draws a firm line when it comes to official recognition and children's wellbeing.
The Moral Problem with Non-Binary Birth Certificates
Kirk identifies what he considers dangerous: adding a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh box on a birth certificate. This is already happening in Canada, where they're adding a non-binary box for gender. Kirk calls this wrong and morally reprehensible.
His reasoning centers on child development. Children typically live in a state of confusion, he argues. They're trying to understand language and their placement in the world. To add more confusion to a child's discovery in an already chaotic world is morally questionable if not reprehensible.
Kirk believes it is society's, parents', and communities' right to guide a child to develop in a chaotic world. To tell a child they can choose whatever they want to be adds more chaos into their life, which will only lead to suffering.
State-Funded Sex Reassignment Surgery for Minors
Kirk provides a specific example to illustrate his concerns: In Oregon, without parental consent, at age 15 a minor can have the state pay for sex reassignment surgery. Both Kirk and his debate partner agree there's something wrong with this policy.
The agreement is immediate and emphatic. A 15-year-old isn't even old enough to legally drink, yet can make permanent medical decisions without parental knowledge or consent with state funding.
Personal Freedom Versus Official Recognition
Kirk clarifies his position on personal freedom. He's fine with individuals identifying as they choose and doesn't believe others are obligated to use their preferred identifiers. However, when asked if someone identifying as another gender might find his idea of two genders offensive, Kirk responds pragmatically.
It might be offensive, he acknowledges, but it would be no more offensive than someone having a religious difference or political difference. Kirk's opinion is rooted first and foremost in biology and politics.