When you google "Trump admin gender move" or anything of sorts, the Evil Big Brother gives you 34 pages, one after another, of pharisees ripping their clothes off and covering their heads in ashes, mourning the Department of Heath and Human Services' plan to create a legal definition of gender, tying it to the fixed status it should have, i.e. determined biologically by the sex at birth. Now, let's leave aside all the wishy washy cultural marxism and relativism that the failed communists of the 30s and 60s left us with, and let's focus on what matters. Let's focus on what the hell the law is and what is for.
What does Haidt want bureaucrats to use when doing their work? Astrology? Coffee bottom reading? Freakin' tea leaves?! Look, it's simple: there is an authority in every country that gives permits to build bridges, right? Well, you want to build a bridge, and you approach them with your paperwork, e.g. blueprints, list of materials to be used, resistance studies, etc. What would you think if the bureaucrats in charge of issuing or denying you the permit tell you that they won't grant it because that bridge color in that exact position and with those characteristics will bring bad luck to the community? Would you laugh your arse off? Or would you punch them in the face? Likely both are good guesses. Simultaneously. The government has to deal in facts and this whole transgender-mania is not based on facts but is, instead, a politically and ideologically charged point of contention which most true scientists are quiet about not because they don't consider it ridiculous but because they know a mob of blue haired lunatics will get them fired, beaten up, and ostracized. There's your "science", Jonathan. I'm sure Newton walked around surrounded by thugs that would beat that crap of anyone who would challenge his laws of motion and universal gravitation.
Now, there's the issue of proportion and here is where Haidt flops badly as a likely cultural marxist in disguise. There are several types of norms, ok? Legal norms, religious norms, social conventions, moral norms, and technical norms. For a jurist the difference between these norms is precise and forms a taxonomy that is part of the jurisprudential canon. Legal norms, unlike the other type of norms, have four characteristics: exteriority, heteronomy, generality, and coercion. Heteronomy means that they are norms that arise from an entity/process different than the individual over whom the norm is applied. Coercion means that they are norms that can be legitimately enforced if the individual is not willingly complying with them. Exteriority means that legal norms are focused on the exterior behavior of the individual, not his feelings or thoughts (unless they are exteriorized in action). And, finally, generality means that the legal norms apply for all.
Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, Jonathan? Debatable. One concept sits firmly and indisputably in the realm of biology while the other is the daily bread of gender, sociology, social activism, and similar gibberish subjects. But let's leave that for a while. As Haidt himself accepts, they align for most people. Well, there you go. Following the aforementioned analogy, the law is not the 50 million pages long document dealing with "three-legged cats born in September and who have a green spot on the back" because (a) that's not law, (b) it's a waste of resources, and (c) law is not esoteric. The law speaks about cats, the responsibilities of owners, how and when to neuter them, punishment for cruelty towards cats, etc. What the transgender lobby has done, and, in general, all the identity politics lunatics roaming free in academia and politics, is to atomize society, its institutions and laws in an unsustainable way. There are men and there are women. It is the right of both to be equal towards the law, and to do whatever they please with their lives as long as they don't curtail the rights and freedoms of others. But to legislate to cater to "three-legged cats born in September and who have a green spot on the back" is proper of decadent, dysfunctional, and frankly dead societies. Caligula ordered his horse to be named high ranking official of the Empire.
That's what this transgender mumbo jumbo is similar to. If a dude wants to get in drag and, in adulthood and in full use of his capacity, chop his manhood off, by all means go ahead. Whatever they do, though, they are and will enjoy the same protection of men and women because they were born and will die men and women, no matter what ideological or medical juggling they do. To force everyone to recognize that tiny minority above everybody else and to give it special treatment is akin to a Roman Caesar going full retard and twisting all norms and traditions to get his way. The West has achieved one of the most sophisticated governance regimes based on the Enlightenment values. Tweaking it further is a deluded political move, not a commonsensical legal one.
So, kudos to the Trump administration for having commonsense, the least common of the senses.