Preserving traditional identity in a changing society: Balancing rights and norms

Identity is fundamental to human existence. It defines how individuals view themselves and their place in society. However, as societies evolve, tensions can arise when the assertion of new identities is perceived as infringing on or altering long-standing ones. In recent years, these tensions have manifested in debates over terminology, societal roles, and rights—particularly in areas involving gender, marriage, and language.

With President Trump’s recent executive order, titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" (January 20, 2025), the United States officially recognizes only two genders—male and female—defined strictly by biological sex at birth. The order mandates that federal agencies revise forms and policies to reflect this binary understanding, removing references to gender identity. Additionally, it directs agencies to eliminate statements or policies that promote gender ideology and to cease funding related initiatives. The order emphasizes the importance of respecting well-established social norms and traditions, rather than imposing new definitions on the majority to accommodate social experiments. This policy shift reinforces the argument that while individuals have every right to define their identities, imposing those definitions on the majority can lead to discomfort, societal fragmentation, and cultural erosion.

The Issue: Redefining Established Terms

For centuries, certain terms—such as "husband," "wife," "male," and "female"—have carried specific meanings rooted in biology, tradition, and societal norms. These terms were not merely descriptors but symbols of societal roles and relationships. However, with the recognition of same-sex unions and the broader acceptance of gender fluidity and transgender identities, the application of these terms has been expanded.

For some, this expansion is a victory for inclusivity and equality. For others, it feels like an infringement on the linguistic and cultural "copyright" of the majority, raising questions about whether these changes respect the collective heritage of language and tradition. The executive order reinforces the position that such terms should remain tied to their historical and biological roots.

Also Read: From colonial legacy to indigenous identity: Redefining India's constitution

Analogies to Clarify the Concern

1. Brand Integrity: Just as a new cola drink cannot call itself "Coca-Cola" without infringing on brand identity, the terms "husband" and "wife" hold a legacy that has been built over centuries. Applying these terms to same-sex unions, while legal and often preferred by the individuals involved, may feel to some like a dilution of their original meaning.
2. National Symbols: A nation’s flag is a representation of its identity. While a new group might create a flag inspired by it, claiming the existing flag as their own would provoke resistance. Similarly, long-standing terms carry a societal "flagship" identity that many feel should remain distinct.
3. Sports Categories: Sports have long maintained separate categories for men and women to ensure fairness, acknowledging inherent physical differences. When transgender athletes compete in women’s categories, controversies often arise about whether this inclusion compromises fairness. This is an example of balancing individual identity with collective equity.

Arguments Supporting the Majority’s Concerns

1. Cultural Heritage and Linguistic Continuity

Language evolves, but rapid, imposed changes can erode cultural heritage. Terms like "husband" and "wife" have deep emotional and cultural significance, rooted in the binary understanding of gender that many societies have adhered to for millennia. Many feel that redefining these terms without societal consensus undermines their history and meaning. The executive order affirms the importance of maintaining these traditional definitions.

2. Democracy and Majority Rights

In democratic societies, laws and norms reflect the will of the majority while protecting minority rights. However, redefining fundamental concepts like gender and marriage often occurs through top-down mandates rather than organic consensus, creating resentment among those who feel their values are being disregarded. The recent policy shift reflects an effort to align legal definitions with the majority’s perspective.

3. Identity without Imposition

Respecting identity is a two-way street. While it is crucial to affirm the identities of minorities, this should not come at the cost of invalidating or appropriating long-standing identities. For instance: • Many biological women express concern that extending the term "female" to include transgender women undermines the specific struggles and achievements of women born female. • Similar concerns arise when parental roles are redefined. Terms like "birthing parent" in place of "mother" may aim to be inclusive but risk alienating those who value traditional terminology.

Also Read: Understanding Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV): A rising global concern

Real-World Examples of Societal Division

1. Mandatory Pronoun Policies

In Canada, Bill C-16 sparked significant debate by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Critics, like academic Jordan Peterson, argued that mandating the use of preferred pronouns was a form of compelled speech, infringing on free expression. Supporters viewed it as essential for protecting transgender rights (Peterson, 2017).

Takeaway: This debate highlights the tension between individual rights and societal norms, with one side prioritizing inclusivity and the other valuing linguistic freedom.

2. Sports Controversies

High-profile cases, such as Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer who competed in women’s events, have fueled debates about fairness in sports. Critics argue that biological advantages undermine the integrity of women’s competitions, while supporters contend that inclusion is paramount (BBC News, 2022).

Takeaway: These cases underline the challenge of balancing fairness for the majority with respect for individual identity.

3. Parental Pushback in Education

In the U.S., laws like Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act (dubbed the "Don’t Say Gay" law) restrict discussions of gender and sexuality in early education. Proponents argue it upholds parental rights, while critics see it as discriminatory (NPR, 2022).

Takeaway: The education system has become a battleground for identity politics, with both sides feeling their values are under threat.

Also Read: Subhas Chandra Bose and Hitler: Pragmatism or ethical dilemma in the struggle for Indian Independence?

Finding a Balanced Path Forward

1. Creating Distinct Terms

Instead of redefining established terms, society could create new ones that respect both traditional and evolving identities. For example: • Rather than applying "husband" and "wife" universally, terms like "partner" or "spouse" could provide inclusive alternatives.

2. Respecting Biological Distinctions

In areas like healthcare, sports, and legal protections, biological distinctions should be maintained where relevant. For example: • In sports, separate categories for transgender athletes could ensure fairness without exclusion.

3. Encouraging Dialogue and Empathy

Open conversations that prioritize mutual understanding can reduce societal division. Policies should be crafted through inclusive dialogue, ensuring that both majority and minority voices are heard.

4. Tailoring Solutions to Context

Policies and terminology changes should be context-specific. For example: • Gender-neutral terms might be appropriate in legal documents but not necessary in personal relationships or cultural rituals.