In contemporary discourse, especially in progressive circles, a peculiar argument has gained traction: that refusing to affirm a person’s self-conception equates to denying their very existence. This assertion is a conflation of two distinct ideas—recognizing a person’s objective existence (mind-independent) and affirming their self-perception (subjective).
A person’s existence is not contingent upon the beliefs of others. I do not believe in thetans, yet Scientologists exist. They are people who do believe in thetans. I do not believe Muhammad spoke to an angel, yet Muslims exist; it is enough that they believe that Muhammad met Gabriel in a cave near Mecca. Scientologists and Muslims do not require my affirmation or approval or affirmation to exist; their beliefs may be untrue, but their right to hold them remains intact, and they continue to exist all the same.
For the record, I disapprove of both Scientology and Islam and I would attempt to talk a family member or close friend out of joining either cult because I presume they seek my counsel. But if they made the decision to see themselves that way, I would still regard them as family and friend and would treat them no differently than before—unless of course they demand that I believe the same or affirm their religion or approve of their choice. My only obligation is tolerance.
I frequently encounter the argument that if I do not affirm a man in his self-perception—if I do not accept what he thinks of himself or what he claims to be, if I do not affirm his subjective identity —I am denying his existence. Just the other day on X, I was confronted with a version of this argument, and the person was obviously offended.
Here’s the context: Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill) had referred to Representative Sarah McBride (D-Del) as “Mr. McBride.” This is because McBride is male. “The chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride, for five minutes,” Miller said in the House chamber last Thursday. “Thank you, Madam Speaker,” McBride replied, before proceeding to deliver a speech. McBride did not disappear because of Miller’s use of male pronouns.
My take on the matter was something along the lines of whether it would not be disrespectful to truth and freedom to expect an official representative of a secular republic to follow the rules of an ideology held by a small minority. To be sure Miller could have follow the minority’s rules. It is a person’s prerogative. But my view is that representatives should not act in bad faith, so her having done so would have irked me.
Based on my comment, a user from McBride’s tribe presumed that I did not acknowledge his gender identity. It was clear that his following assertions were not made in agreement with my point, but represented instead defiance of the alleged trans erasure project. He wanted me to know that, in all his interactions with others (he works for a food delivery platform), he has never once been “misgendered.” I gathered from this that he believes he passes, but the more likely explanation for what he perceives as affirmation testifies to the hegemony of gender ideology rules. Those with whom he interacts are reluctant to transgress the novel norm. His defiance testified to his acceptance of the doctrine of erasure.
When I explained that he is free to identify any way he wishes, it was at that point that he blocked me. I wished the interaction had continued because I wanted him to know that I do not need to recognize him for how he sees himself, that his existence does not depend on my acknowledgement at all. He exists independent of my consciousness; I never knew he existed until he commented on X, yet he always has been (at least since his birth and until his death). Perhaps his defiance was really agreement with my position. I could be wrong. I will never know.
But I want readers to know that I have always maintained that a person is free to believe whatever he wishes about himself. I am a libertarian, and freedom of self expression is one of central tenets of the standpoint. I genuinely have no desire to dictate to people how they must to think of themselves, nor would I ever treat a person differently based on self-expression. My view is the same for those of different religious faiths, as I earlier explained. My view is the same for those of different political ideologies, as well. Whatever one believes, he is entitled to it, as well as to my tolerance.
At the same time, tolerance must be reciprocal. If one man is free to believe something about his identity, another must be equally free to not believe what he believes, and even to disagree with it. The principle of tolerance permits disagreement, so it’s okay. It’s, simple, really: if I cannot dictate what another must believe about himself, then neither should he be able to compel me to affirm his self-perception. If my refusal to affirm his belief is framed as a denial of his existence, or a threat to it, even if he defies my power to do so, and I am punished for that refusal, then I am no longer free to believe as I will. The moment affirmation becomes mandatory, freedom of conscience and thought ceases to exist. Then it becomes not about individual dignity but about ideological control. I am of course not erased—I am oppressed. That’s what makes it complicated.
At the core of this debate is the question of whether respect for others necessitates agreement with their self-definition. Advocates of gender ideology argue that refusal to affirm another’s identity is harmful. But compelled affirmation undermines intellectual and moral autonomy, and this is harmful because, as noted above, it violates the freedoms of conscience, speech, and publishing. It also violates the right to free association, since it requires an individual to obey the rules of a group to which he does not belong.
The tension thus lies between social cohesion, as dictated by some, and individual liberty, as self-determined, as well as protected by fundamental law, and if the government upholds the dictates of some over others with respect to the fundamental rights just noted, then the government violates that law. If affirmation is enforced, then liberty is sacrificed in the name of ideological conformity. This is why the state of a free nation is obliged to remain neutral on such matters; the person whose affirmation is force becomes unfree.
Presumably this is the reason, in 2021, when the House adopted rules under Speaker Nancy Pelosi that replaced gender-specific language (such as “he” or “she”) with gender-neutral terms (such as “they” or “Member”), no formal rule was adopted mandating pronoun use based on gender. Members are generally addressed by their official titles anyway (e.g., “Representative” or “Congressperson”). The rules also allow individual members may choose how they wish to be addressed, and decorum rules guide respectful communication in debates and official proceedings. But to my knowledge, preferred pronouns were never prescribed. Credit where credit is due goes the cliché.
Pelosi’s changes primarily focused on replacing gender-specific terms (e.g., “chairman” with “chair,” “father” and “mother” with “parent”) in House documents to promote the progressive norm of inclusivity. Promoting ideology this way is certainly obnoxious, indeed incongruent with the principles of a free nation, but that Republicans have not to my knowledge rescinded the rules since assuming control of the House strongly implies they were not impositions with the force of discipline behind them. If I am wrong about that, I will correct the record.
This distinction between affirmation and tolerance is the crucial point. Tolerance allows for peaceful coexistence despite differences, while forced affirmation demands conformity to a prescribed belief system. If a man believes that 2+2=5, he is free to do so, but his belief does not alter mathematical reality. My insistence that 2+2=4 does not erase his existence; it simply affirms a mathematical truth. However, if I am compelled to say that 2+2=5, then I am no longer free. And if the man who states mathematical falsehoods refuses to defend my freedom to dissent, then he has marked himself as an authoritarian. I am at present free to criticize the man who asserts mathematical falsehoods, but unless he is teaching these falsehoods to captive audiences, such as school children or college students, I have no grounds to stop him from doing so.
Paradoxically, the idea that I must recognize a person for who he claims to be lest he ceases to exist grants me an almost godlike status. It implies that my acknowledgment or affirmation is what sustains his being—as if, without my validation, he would vanish from existence. I am simply not that important nor that powerful. I still maintain that identity is not what a man thinks of himself, but what he is. The point I wish to make here is that very argument that demands compulsory affirmation in the name of personal autonomy ironically undermines that autonomy, making identity dependent not on the individual or on reality, but on the perceptions of others. This absurdity testifies to the corruption of postmodernism and its reduction of reality to subjectivity. Indeed, the farce of gender identity is self-confessed if its existence requires my affirmation, since it confirms that he believes his identity depends on my believing it, as well. But I have no such obligation, and he nonetheless continues to exist whatever either of us believes.
I want to emphasis this problem of freedom and coercion, for this is really what is at stake here (not the man’s existence). This real issue arises because societal pressures increasingly push for not just tolerance but affirmation—the expectation that one must actively validate another person’s self-conception to avoid accusations of bigotry or hostility. This is a long-standing project to make a man’s stubborn commit to the truth and freedom appear as if it is an act of discrimination or harassment. But it is this ideological project that manufactures the conflict; when affirmation demands the acceptance of ideas that contradict one’s own beliefs, when affirmation is no longer a personal choice but an enforced obligation, freedom of thought and speech are compromised.
This is not a matter of civility or decorum; this is about the fundamental freedom of individuals to hold and express beliefs, which includes not agreeing with or expressing beliefs he does not hold. This is really not about him but about all of us. Freedom is reciprocal. A man is free to believe that he is something, but I must also be free to disagree. If I cannot dictate his beliefs, then he cannot dictate mine. If his identity depends on my acceptance, and I am punished for refusing to affirm it, then I am not free to hold my own beliefs. If disagreement is prohibited or penalized, then one belief is being forcibly elevated over others, and autonomy is eroded. Yes, I am repeating myself, but the matter of freedom eludes a great many people so it bears repeating.
As I have written about at length on Freedom and Reason, control over language and belief has been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell, a keen observer of authoritarianism, warned of the dangers of linguistic manipulation, where dissent becomes a crime and objective reality is sacrificed for ideological purity. He warned the world of the Thought Police. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, argued that the free exchange of ideas is essential precisely because no authority should have the power to dictate belief. There can be no commissar as no one is suited for the position. No man is God. Nor can any man speak for him. There can only be authoritarians who presume to be or speak for God.
Historical instantiations of authoritarianism are plentiful; National Socialism, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are the most notable, but they hardly exhaust the examples one may cite. Increasingly, nations of the West impose on the populace rules that compel speech. This is true also in the United States (otherwise, this essay would be about the United Kingdom or some other nation that polices speech and writing). This is a road that should never be traveled. When social cohesion is built upon enforced agreement rather than mutual respect, it ceases to be true cohesion and instead becomes a form of intellectual subjugation. It is therefore crucial to state, over and over, in no uncertain terms, that a free people will resist being dragged into the downward spiral of unfreedom. If they don’t, they are already unfree.
Therefore, the real tension is not between affirmation and bigotry or hostility, as is often framed, but between authoritarianism and freedom. A society that values liberty must defend not only the right to believe, but also the right to disbelieve and even to dissent. The moment disagreement is treated as an existential threat, free thought is sacrificed on the altar of ideological control. Affirmation must remain a choice; it cannot be required, not without establishing the authoritarian condition. Even under the demand of civility and kindness, we trade genuine freedom for the illusion of consensus when we demand conformity to the ideologies or others. It is, as I have argued, a form of bad faith. Agreement cannot be enforced by fear, intimidation, or sanction; it must be built on mutual respect. Those who stand outside gender ideology do not believe in its myths. Those who do believe the myths will have to tolerate the disbelief of those who don’t. I disbelieve.
freedom and reason 