Having followed the debate here, I think it needs to be stressed that, while there are some genuinely upsetting anecdotes, there’s no statistical link between trans-inclusive bathroom policies and violence against women. See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911106
If you want to narrow the conversation to bathrooms, and the evidence you oresent of no problems is correct, perhaps you are right. Most exposures that might be considered intimate, take place within a cubicle. But this seems like a diversion. There are plenty of examples of situations in other female spaces (such as changing rooms, refuges, and prisons), where women have been caused justified embarrassment by the presence of biological men. You seem to be setting up a straw man to divert attention from the problems with your argument.
No, I’m pointing out factual reality that conflicts with an argument that’s been raised here multiple times. It’s been asserted that a key reason to keep trans people out of their preferred bathrooms is physical safety. The evidence suggests the opposite.
No you're not. You're deliberately trying to deal with a minor problem, for which you apparently have some evidence, while avoiding serious issues which you wish to brush over. I'll tell you what the real issues are. They're when women have to go to womens' refuges because of adverse experiences with men and find biological men invading the only places of refuge they can find. When men, who come 170th in male swimming events, win in female events by claiming to be women, and deny womens' sport in its entirely, just to gain a medal. It's when a nurse in Scotland, during her period, finds herself having to undress in front of a biological man, because of Trans policies adopted by her employer. It's when lesbians are abused because they wish to date biological females. It's just disgusting, biological men seeking admission to women only spaces to engage in their perversion, and that's all that needs saying on the subject. It's just another form of male chauvinism, pure and simple, and it needs to be fought in all its manifestations. At least the Trump administration has one one thing right (I don't anticipate many others btw).
Obviously this is a highly nuanced debate. Surely it is should be plain that are a wide range of people claiming to be 'trans' but this has simply become a meme. There needs to be awareness that there are actual people who really have a problem and that there are others who take advantage of the compassion towards the former and exploit it. Isn't this obvious?
This article assumes that only one side of this debate is extremist. Jesse Singal, a science journalist who does detailed investigative work on the evidence for and against youth gender medicine, receives 1000s of messages every year from trans activists telling him he deserves to die and urging him to kill himself. Trans activists have demanded that major media outlets (such as the New York Times) stop all reporting on this controversy. Scientists have refused to publish research findings due to fear of how trans activists will respond. While some on the Right want to eliminate transgender individuals, some on the Left want to eliminate detransitioned individuals. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Elrod's contention, one cannot “debate the scope and limit of trans rights” because such debate is effectively forbidden by those who insist upon an endless scope that is not even limited by the rights of others. Matt Walsh and his ilk are crude opportunists, but their views are made to appear legitimate by the extremism of the transgender movement.
I'm not sure which side you think is extremist! But this well written article draws attention to the 'Eliminationist' activists who enforce their version of reality.
They deny that there could be any biological or organic aetiology but in my own blog I routinely cite Professor VS Ramachandran, Dr Milton Diamond and other researchers who have found evidence of organic involvement with the syndrome.
This is not to say that all claims of 'transgenderism' should be accepted. Like all claims they should be subject to some element of triage and testing. Clearly there are a lot of crazy people out there claiming to be 'trans' without any supporting evidence in their lives.
If you would like to consider this in more detail, try looking at my own Substack.
I have definitely heard people say "we need to eliminate Christianity from the public square" without intending to genocide Christians - they mean they would like to get rid of compelled prayers, observances, and other instantiations of public culture that privilege Christian belief over other religious beliefs or no beliefs. I may be too charitable to Walsh and Knowles but I don't think they actually want to eliminate transgender people, they want to get rid of the instantiations of public culture (official Pride weeks, trans day/week/month/year of visibility etc.) and lionization of being trans that has grown up over the past decade. I think they're myopic but I don't think they are genocidal/want to do harm to individual trans people as the Balko quote/your comment on it in the article suggests.
A subtle but important difference is that "We need to eradicate Christianity from public life entirely" has to do with taking steps to de-privilege it from being normatively prioritized in the public square, whereas "We need to eradicate transgenderism from public life entirely" involves choking out very basic forms of social access and individual expression for members of an identity group that are already marginalized. If Walsh and Knowles had their way, trans people wouldn't be able to get certain forms of healthcare they need, social documentation (e.g., passports) they rely on that matches their self-identification, and access to public provisions like bathrooms connected to their gender identities.
Sure. But, devil's advocate, your right to express yourself does not extend to your right to have me face civil or criminal or other official consequences if I don't use your preferred pronouns. *****Personally, I DO use people's preferred pronouns.***** Because I'm not a jerk. But I will fight to the death against anyone who thinks they have the right to punish misgendering or deadnaming. I would be miserable, maybe suicidal, if everyone called me ugly behind my back when I think I'm not and desperately want to be beautiful... but I don't have the right to make people call me beautiful, even if my suicide is the alternative.
You can disrespect people, but you need to accept that has consequences.
Intentionally misgendering your coworkers or students creates a hostile environment and constitutes harassment, just as constantly calling them ugly would. And that is and SHOULD BE grounds for getting disciplined or fired.
And, frankly, the Devil has more than enough legal representation these days...
Yes. You're right. But there's a billion mile wide gap between firing someone for saying rude things, and requiring them to state kind things. DEI pledges are the latter. That way lies a society where everyone has made a pledge nobody believes, because speech is coerced. And we have seen how such societies function. And those societies are uniformly miserable in ways I would not prefer if the alternative were living locked in a house with ol Trumpy and his stupid insults the rest of my days.
But that's only because "misgendering" has been invested with sacred weight and made inviolable, but with no real argument about why. E.g. some people hold the music genre they love the most as the single most important part of their identity - if you "misgenred" then and mistook a cybergoth for a symphonic black metal fan, they would be deeply, deeply offended. But should that preference be protected by law, or by cultural norms against being a jerk to people?
There are contexts where you're not allowed disrespect people without limit, believe it or not! I literally described two of them in the post you're replying to.
Of course but we're discussing "the public square," not workplaces. There are all sorts of restrictions on speech as a result of federal anti-discrimination law.
Also just to say it, I would not intentionally call someone something they don't want to be called because I'm not a jerk. Unless it was like on that episode of Seinfeld where George wanted everyone to call him T-Bone.
Accepting that trans people are simply human and trying to live their lives truthfully is not “lionization.” It’s like saying we give special privileged status to minority groups when all that is being called for are basic civil rights that have been denied. Should we ban St. Patrick’s Day parades or Lunar New year’s or Cinquo de Mayo celebrations? Pay attention- the words say they want “transgenderism” ERADICATED. No subtle meaning there.
I would assume a person staunchly against observance of religion in the public square would 100% be opposed to government recognition of St. Patrick's Day, Lunar New Year, or any other ethnic/religious holiday tied to a belief in the supernatural. Cinco de Mayo is sort of a weird relatively recently made up one so I don't know how a hardcore anti-religion person would approach that.
I do wonder whether it would be sufficient to treat it as a freedom of religion issue. Is it enough for people to be free to be trans on the same way that they are free to be Christians? Or are there requirements on other people that go beyond what we normally extend to religions?
That's the challenge, there aren't many religions that claim the state must take certain actions to allow them to practice their religion freely (protestations of various religious conservative groups notwithstanding).
Alan, I love your article. I was just delineating yesterday, among my fellow centrist friends (and a couple of progressives), that we need to be willing to debate the scope and limit of trans rights, vs parental rights, the right of *other* prisoners/health insurance customers to have aid in rhinoplasty and other treatments that ameliorate body dysphoria, etc. But your article is a CRUCIAL counterpoint. There is a horde who do not sincerely want to debate. They want to eliminate. Thank you for spelling it out clearly.
Thanks so much, Jason. And I think this is important for people who are not transphobic to understand. There are people trying to gin up the worst emotions and impulses they can
Thankyou for your comment Jason. I am a transsexual woman who has written against the transgender rights narrative and am willing to debate the scope and limits of rights.
The trouble is that few people seem to understand that there is a wide range of 'trans' people and many often blame those of us who have been through the full process and assimilated into society for the things that those who have no wish to and go about abusing their so-called 'rights'. Much on this in my own Substack and here is my book link.
Thank you kindly, ma'am. It's awkward times. May I just say, I have your back, and imagine it's a lonely path to be off-script within the trans community. Am now a subscriber of yours!
And when are women’s rights to privacy in intimate spaces ever get discussed. When was the last time a trans rights activist or ally was willing to have that discussion? When have you?
I want good lives for gender non-conforming people, safe, and free from housing, work and other discriminations. But why should I have to change in front of a male? Why should women be kicked out of our spaces when we complain about men with genitalia out in our locker rooms. MeToo was just a tag line de jour and now we are the bigots for not wanting to feel vulnerable in women’s spaces.
To your point about a passport, it is not only a marker of your citizenship - it is a largely standardized document that enables us to move between countries. I’m pretty sure the changes to sex markers were not internationally approved. Why not? So now what happens when countries, like Muslim countries, figure out that they can’t trust the sex markers in these documents? It will be the women being told to pull down their pants.
Does allowing trans women in women’s washrooms make cis women less safe? As far as I can tell, no. If you have concrete evidence that shows that trans women are a danger to cis women I would be interested in discussing it.
Does allowing trans women in women’s washrooms make them safer? Evidence would suggest yes, trans women are at great risk of being attacked in men’s washrooms.
Ergo, there’s no good reason not to allow trans women in women’s washrooms and it would greatly improve their safety, so it should be allowed.
Ah decent response, although it’s just one example not really statistical evidence. Still here we have a male sex offender abusing a policy which allows trans women to use the correct changing room, which is a common criticism of those policies. Tbh though the bigger story is that a school failed to remove a sexual predator from the premises even after numerous complaints, this could have happened regardless of whether he could pretend to be trans. I think the biggest criticism of trans inclusivity in this story though is that the school might have been scared to act against him because he identified as trans and they didn’t want to be seen as persecuting a trans person. That’s maybe a reason to be a little smarter in being inclusive of trans people than a full indictment of inclusivity though.
I think though the real problem here is that the school let a known sexual predator have access to vulnerable people, less so than letting a man into women’s spaces. Without an inclusive changing room policy he still could have just gone into the women’s changing room anyway (criminals aren’t usually stopped by rules) or exposed himself in the men’s changing room. I’m sympathetic to the argument that sexual predators can abuse trans inclusive policies to gain access to victims, but it’s far from the only way they have to do so and I don’t know how effective it really is in most cases (the school should have banned him for being a sex offender, regardless of gender).
Women's rights to privacy in intimate spaces are the entire issue here. Some women are being deprived of that right and being forced to go into men's intimate spaces. Why should they have to change in front of a man? If that is such a terrible experience, why do you want to inflict it on trans women?
See how that sounds when it's reversed? You are begging the question by saying this is about "women's rights to privacy in intimate spaces" (which is something you don't really have already, since other women are in those spaces with you). The pro-trans reply is that transwomen are other women, so your right to privacy is unchanged if they are in the same space as you.
The pro-trans movement is often criticized for defining gender as some kind of metaphysical essence. However, much of the anti-trans arguments seems to rest on the idea that men have some kind of evil essence that will cast a bad juju on women if they are allowed into private spaces. If that is the case, isn't the easiest solution just to accept that transwomen don't cast bad juju? Lots of cis women have done that, there are plenty who are fine with transwomen in the same spaces as them. Feel free to believe that transwomen are men or women, whichever you want, if they are women they won't cast a bad juju on you, if they are men then they aren't the kind of men who do.
You're not understanding that there are transsexuals who have neurology that is more female than male. If they have the medical reassignment then that should be taken into account as forcing them to use men's spaces would put *them* at risk. This amounts to persecution.
Trans is an identity based on a feeling. There is no way to objectively verify a person's claim that he or she is the opposite of his or her biological sex. In no other area of human life do we accept a person's claim about themselves without asking for evidence, whether it is nationality, profession, marital status, etc. "I really feel like I am married to this person so I should receive their social security check when they die".
People who deal with gender dysphoria by identifying as trans have every right to live life however they choose and to be free from discrimination in all areas of human life where biological sex plays no role. Almost all employment fits that criteria. Almost all housing. And we can debate in just what areas of human life biological sex truly needs to be acknowledged. Elite sports certainly seems to be one such area. Medicine is another. Biological sex, not gender identity, Differences in response to medications and differences in susceptibility to certain diseases and conditions correlate with biological sex, not gender identity.
I do oppose demands of trans-identifying individuals to be legally recognized as having a gender opposite to their biological sex. And I am unwilling to go along with their demands that society, including myself, affirm their claims about themselves. Donald Trump insists he is a genius. Do I have to accept that claim when there is absolutely no evidence?
I am entitled to my view of gender just as much as they are entitled to theirs. I am not demanding that they accept the binary view. They should not demand that I accept their belief in gender fluidity.
I find that it's a lot easier to recognize the legitimacy of the "feeling" that trans is based on is to imagine hypothetical scenarios where you'd have the same feeling. For instance, imagine a mad scientist transplanted your brain into a body of the opposite sex. In such a scenario, are you justified in being upset about your situation and seeking to reverse it?
Or imagine you were transplanted into a robot body without any primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Would you be justified in still thinking of yourself as a man or a woman in that situation?
When I posit such scenarios to anti-trans activists, they usually have no reply other than that they are "absurd." That indicates to me that they haven't really thought the issue through, and probably don't want to.
What you are asking people to imagine is what at least some trans people claim describes their situation. "I was born in the wrong body". But there is no physical evidence for such a claim. What is a female brain? It is my understanding that there are some small differences between male and female brains, but I have not heard of any studies showing that trans people have the body of one sex but the brain of the other.
And what does it mean to "feel like a woman"? Before you can say "I feel like a woman", you have to define what a woman is. Then you have to explain how you have learned what it feels like to be that kind of human. You also have to decide how much of that feeling is innate and how much is ingrained societal expectations. And if you define a woman as anyone who feels like he/she is a woman, then the definition is meaningless, useless and you are trapped in circular logic.
Trans people talk about being erased. One could make the argument that men who identify as women and insist they are "women, full stop!" are seeking to erase what it has always meant, until the 21st century, to be a woman, namely an adult human of the female sex. Now, according to trans thinking, to be a woman is nothing more than a feeling. But then to add to the illogic of it all, many trans people seek to change their bodies via hormones and surgery to "align" them with their felt gender, basically acknowledging the biological definition of male and female.
This is all a belief system, an illogical one to me, but still as much deserving of protection as other beliefs, to the extent that it does not harm non-believers. No one should face discrimination or harassment or censure for beliefs that do not harm others. But they cannot demand that others become believers.
There is some evidence actually. VS Ramachandran, Professor of Neuropsychology at San Diego University published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies in 2007 on the phenomenon of 'phantom limbs' or rather 'phantom penises' in female to male transsexuals.
His hypothesis to explain this is a neurological discrepancy between brain mapping and the body. Brain structure and mapping is his speciality and he gave the Reith Lectures about 20 years ago, on the subject of language, metaphor and brain mapping including the shared neural links between hands and voice. Complicated stuff and he is a world expert on brain mapping.
He also indicated that there was some evidence for a reverse condition for male to female transsexuals who felt that their male genitalia shouldn't be there. I had that.
I have some private correspondence from an Emeritus Professor of Psychobiology who wrote to me about my book saying that he thought it was 'full of good scholarship and clear thinking.' He added that 'of course' he agreed with my views (that this condition has an organic basis in neurology).
There are also research papers from the likes of Gooren & Zhou, Professor Julie Bakkar and Dr Milton Diamond. It's funny how these papers get ignored by people who are ideologically opposed to the concept. Confirmation bias.
I am nodding my head as I read this comment. I do think there is a difference between opposing ideology and “eliminationism.” Those who actually pursue the latter in the guise of the former should be called out. As a libertarian, I very much prefer to pursue the path that achieves the maximum amount of “live and let live.” But that’s not simple here. I have a trans family member; none of this is simple.
The author seems to acknowledge that even if we remove eliminationism from the debate, as we should, we will still have much to debate. And this piece glosses over just how difficult that is:
“Now that trans people, unwilling to keep pretending that they don’t exist, are trying to eke out some space for themselves, they are unsettling long-standing social structures based on binary assumptions. What these structures should be replaced with will be debated and discussed. It is not obvious to many what kind of social structures would allow them space without diminishing it for others.”
Indeed. It may be not obvious to the author, but in certain areas, it is quite obvious that activism has produced wrong-headed and dangerous outcomes.
To the previous comment’s topics identifying areas where biological sex cannot/should not be ignored, I would add transgender prison housing assignment, battered women’s shelters, rape crisis centers, etc. Serious abuses and harm have been documented as a result of blind ideological implementation of the trans agenda.
But all means, let’s get eliminationism out of the debate, and let’s also remove ideological activism from it. Both make reasoned discussion impossible.
For things like prisons and shelters, it seems pretty obvious that the issue is genitalia shape, not "biological sex," to the extent that those two are different. If a transwoman has had a vaginoplasty it seems like a terrible idea to put her in a men's prison, or to deny her access to a rape crisis center if some guy raped her.
I'm glad to read someone saying this! Isn't it obvious?
I was talking about this whole issue the other day with a close female friend whom I have known for twelve years or more and she said 'I've never thought of you as anything other than a woman'.
Three years ago I was taken ill and had to spend a couple of nights in hospital. I was sent straight to a female assessment ward. This was the same hospital where I had had my medical reassignment some forty years ago, so clearly my medical notes would indicate my status.
Had I simply claimed that I was 'transgender' without any supporting evidence that I had had the medical treatment, looked like a man and was still morphologically an intact male then I expect I would have been sent to a men's ward.
Basic common sense needs to be employed. Some of the comments on this thread are so ideologically hostile that it seems they would rather see me humiliated, and possibly r**ed should I be unfortunate or ill advised enough to get myself detained at His Majesty's pleasure.
I have never suffered a complaint concerning my use of women's toilets and I used to be a nurse. I was accepted.
I am transsexual and I accept the sex binary. But there are anomalies and grey areas, some of which are already understood, and others less so. If someone, like me, is anomalous and fits more readily into society after medical reassignment, should I be forced to use men's toilets? I have my dignity and to go into a men's toilet could well be seen as soliciting.
This is an issue rarely addressed by eliminationists.
You do not acknowledge here that the institution of gender ideology beliefs (yes, I call it that, because it is a belief system that people's self-expressed gender supersedes sex) in our law and norms has harmed other vulnerable groups, particularly women and children.
You do not acknowledge the scandalous medical ramifications of this ideology being embedded in our institutions (state laws, federal executive orders, insurance, norms, etc.) in destroying the healthy bodies and fertility of children, who cannot consent to these drastic interventions, based on what has clearly proven to be ideologically-based poor science in multiple scientific systematic reviews. Simply look at the UK and Europe, which have pulled away from "gender affirming care," as there is no evidence it does good and so much evidence that does harm.
You do not acknowledge the rapes and sexual assaults of women in prison and shelters who have been subjected to sharing their housing with males who say they are women, usually males with fully intact genitals who can simply state they are a woman to have access to women's spaces. It is an inconvenient truth, but you cannot “affirm” the wish of trans women to be seen as women and keep biological women safe.
You do not acknowledge how Title 9 has been gutted, forcing women and girls to compete unfairly against male athletes. Pride of accomplishment and the loss of scholarships and careers for women has resulted.
You do not acknowledge how this ideology has torn so many families apart.
These are ALSO vulnerable people who have been harmed. It's a five-alarm fire, requiring some drastic measures. The army of detransitioners speaking up should be some evidence for you to consider.
And finally, you do not acknowledge that many liberals and progressives, feminists, gay and lesbian people and trans people, have been trying desperately to talk about the "scope and limits" for many years, without being allowed our reasonable concerns to be expressed. (As an important correction to your piece, Kellie-Jay Keen is not a feminist, by her own self-definition and is not considered a gender critical feminist by others.) If you would like links to writing from these folks, I’m happy to provide it if you are not familiar with them.
For many years, the mantra was "no debate," so our reasonable concerns could not make it into public discourse. We have been silenced and cancelled, even fired. We never wanted people who identify as trans to be hurt or "eliminated." I think many religious ideas are hogwash, but I want people to be free to be who they are, as long as there are not public policies which impinge on the rights and safety of others. Maybe Matt Walsh wants to "eliminate" trans people, I don't know. But many of us opposed to this ideology do not want to take away anyone's rights. I am utterly against trans individuals being excluded from the military, for example. There may have to be accommodation made that balance everyone's needs, but if someone wants to serve our country, they should be allowed to do so.
I also acknowledge that, especially given the extreme rhetoric and fear-mongering about "trans genocide" in recent years, there is much real fear and pain in these communities. I wish the approach Trump took was less chaotic and cruel, but I agree with the gist of the orders: sex, not gender identity, should be what public policy is based upon.
Most Americans agree with this position, based on polls. We are not really that divided about it. And because the left and the Democrats would not listen to us—believe me, we who have been lifelong Democrats have tried and tried, for many years—we are here in this dangerous place with Donald Trump and billionaires in charge. I am able to hold two truths at the same time: Donald Trump is an existential threat to our nation…and gender identity ideology is very harmful and I celebrate its being curbed so more children are not harmed.
I am a conservative and have no truck and little patience for social progressivism and think the trans-activists and trans-hysterics are both wrong in their approach to this issue. But what I think is really irrelevant.
I guess you are unaware that women have been raping women (and men raping men) in prisons for a long time. However most of the same sex activity among both men and women
is consensual. It is quite possible that a trans-woman with a penis might also be quite popular in a female prison... as many gay men are in in men's institutions. And when it comes to safety how safe would a man with a surgically created vulva and vagina be in a a male prison?
Like many you have no real life experience of the social and psychological dynamics of prison life. I bring this up because the danger of "prison rape" seems to be a running thread throughout the anti-trans discourse.
All I know from the conservative point of view is that trans-women have been using women's spaces since at least 1953 and has not been an issue until trans-persons started "coming out" and a greater number of people have begun to identify themselves that way. So as long as no one knew who was trans it was not a problem. I remember when gay men and lesbians were "accepted" so long as they didn't "flaunt" there orientation in front of others---especially children.
You are correct in your assumption that I have no personal experience in prisons. I am in contact with women in prison or who have been in prison however, so I base my observations on what they tell me and what is reported. I am also familiar with the law, at least in California. Before the law changed in California and elsewhere to allow self-ID, trans identified males in women's prisons did not seem to be a problem, from what I know. I have no idea if it goes back to 1953, but I know it goes back a few years. These individuals were vetted on a case by case basis by prison officials. When the law changed to allow any male who wishes to be housed with women based on how they "identified", many, more men entered women's prisons. And the rapes and sexual assaults that have resulted are well documented. Whether some of these relationships are desired and consensual is entirely irrelevant. Prisons are supposed to be places where people have a chance to rehabilitate while they pay their debt to society. They are not supposed to be places of terror and torture.
What prisons are supposed to be is not the reality of what they are.
I do agree that "self-ID" (the trans-activist position) is an irrational basis for deciding who goes where. I am also pretty sure someone who is not on a hormone regimen and still has a penis should be assigned to a male facility.
However if the trans person is on an adequate hormonal regimen usually then
Erections: People taking estrogen experience fewer erections, and the erections they do have are less firm or shorter.
Libido: Estrogen reduces a person's interest in sex, or libido.
Ejaculation: People taking estrogen experience a decrease in ejaculation.
Sperm count: Estrogen reduces or eliminate sperm count.
Testicular size: Estrogen causes the testicles to shrink.
Additionally persons, even at the preoperative stage GENERALLY perceive themselves as heterosexual women and do not see themselves as lesbian and therefore don't generally have a desire to have sex with women consensual or otherwise. YES I KNOW THERE ARE ANECDOTAL OUTLIARS. But again the "problem" has been exaggerated by trans-hysterics to add to their ideological argument and not the safety or needs of female prisoners.
Ironically state laws banning the hormonal treatment for trans prisoners only makes the problem worse and provides less safety for everyone.
I'm very glad that someone has pointed out that prior to 'self identification' there didn't seem to be a problem, presumably because the transsexual women who found themselves locked up had all had reassignment surgeries.
Now that anyone with a penis can claim to be a woman, then obviously this is going to be abused.
This is the real problem, not transsexuals who have had a lifelong problem leading to medical reassignment.
I’ve come to this essay late, but I would like to add to your list that he does not acknowledge the many families (my own included) who have been traumatized and sometimes almost torn apart by the almost Marxist-Leninist accusations against those who would dare question or discuss these new iterations on a life we thought we understood. And as you note, it is the almost sacrosanct status that’s been afforded to gender ideology, a sacrosanctness that has largely translated into people being shunned, fired, isolated, mocked and reviled for even daring to question its most basic tenets, that is for me, the biggest red flag.
Thank you for this post. It’s clear and shows the malefic intentions behind much of the anti-trans thinkers. Given trans people have more visibility than we used to, I guess it was inevitable there was a backlash. With Trump in office, the backlash has become serious and existentially threatening. I think this too shall pass but for that to happen, clarity must prevail. Thank you again —
The backlash would either not have happened at all, or would have been much less severe if there had not been so much abuse of claimed privilege over the last decade.
Most people know next to nothing about the issue and only go by what they see or hear in the media. They see all these transgenders with their 'female penises' demanding entrance to female spaces and they see the number of children being rushed through reassignment and they see all those who regret what they have done and they come to a conclusion against it all.
Does anyone think this would have happened organically if we hadn't had a decade or more of 'self ID', gender ideology and tampons in boys bathrooms? This is what Trump is against. He's not someone who does nuance!
Of course it's an over reaction but I have enough faith in humanity to look to a time when the pendulum will swing back. But hopefully not back to where it was last year say.
For myself, I despise all those TG activists who have claimed my identity and then told me that I am 'oppressive' for having done everything that was asked of me in order to assimilate over the last forty years.
Too many dilettantes have poisoned the well and we now have to reclaim our territory.
Deciding not to recognise the category doesn't make the people not exist. Instead, the definition shifts to "people claiming a certain identity" rather than "people who are something", which seems sensible.
I'm an older liberal who never got on board with gender-as-identity; I think tolerance without validation or recognition is a fine way to approach this issue.
“The Devil hates humanity ... so he tries to cut away at the very core of humanity.”
In this thinking, "the very core of humanity" is something that humans share with mice, and with most animal species. Being human is not about soul or spirit or heart or mind; it's simply about generating other humans.
Natcon Christians seem to be absolutely fixated on biological reproduction and what they assume to be traditional gender roles, to the neglect of other religious or human values. (How else could they have made Donald Trump their hero?)
I have at times responded to extreme notions about gender - e.g., "gender is a spectrum" or "gender is a social construction" - by mentioning the fact that virtually all animals are clearly recognized as either male or female; virtually every human society that we know of recognizes male/female in the same way; and the whole concept of "gender" originates in "engendering." I have also brought up data showing that gender dysphoria in children usually disappears with natural puberty.
BUT, I also recognize that the gender binary is not biologically always so absolute as tradcons claim; that some people identify as nonbinary and actually seem gender-ambiguous; and that some people who are profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex do become happier after transitioning, and then go on to be productive and act like normal people, not mentally disturbed. It is not for me to say that adults should have dealt with their discomfort in a different way. Humans with mind and spirit should make those decisions for themselves.
The effort to eradicate "transgenderism" can be seen as a war against things that set humans apart from other animal species.
Over and over I keep hearing single incident anecdotes as evidence of a wide spread phenomenon that simply doesn't exist. Trans-women are by the numbers simply not a threat to the safety of women and children.
I also find it interesting that this exclusively about women's safety with no discussion of the safety of trans-women. Apparently women transitioning to men have no place in the conversation.
I think (and I admit what I think doesn't matter) that the degree of transitioning of the individual person (not their DNA) should be the common sense guide which both trans-activists and trans-hysterics won't accept.
A person who appears to be a woman (even with a penis) goes into the women's room and a woman with chest hair and a beard (even with a vagina) goes to the men's.
A trans-woman with a penis probably ought to not go into either a men's or women's locker room. Same with a trans-man with a vagina.
Women's athletics is a whole different kettle of fish and I don't think anyone has come up with a good way of handling it. But I think, for the time being, trans-women should not be playing in women's competitions or sports teams. However I once knew a girl from a very small town in Kansas who played American football on a men's team and was one of their best players!
However exclusion does become the gateway to elimination and that is the goal of Christian Nationalists who are gaining ascendency in our political ecosystem.
As a one nation conservative I believe that it is important to find a way of integrating all citizens into society. Trans-women, and more recently trans-men, have been living in our midst since 1953. Many of these people were professionals who "came out" as trans only after they retired. And for trans-persons of that era becoming and perceived as women was the whole point. They were known and accepted as women throughout most of their lives. It is because more people are coming out, or just exploring their gender identity, and medicine has improved the outcomes of transitioning to a different sex, that this has become a problem.
It is not up to the government to decide how trans-persons should be treated (except for enforcing the laws against assault, rape and murder, etc.) the laws. And also discrimination in employment, housing, accommodations etc. Let the market and individual businesses and organizations decide how to handle the trans-people in their midst. If you don't like their decisions--- don't patronize them.
I personally think the gender identity pronoun war is just silly. Civilized and polite people simply refer to people as they prefer. I prefer to be called "Griff" and not Harley. My personal pronouns are it/its. I think that while sex is a given gender is largely a construct, yes tied to sex but socially determined. I believe that we are born non-binary and that biological sex is not destiny.
And, as with everything the antisocial media has had a detrimental effect on rational thought about the subject of gender identity and sexuality.
It’s highly frustrating that the Unpopulist presents itself as against populism and as a bastion of reasonable liberalism but in practice exclusively punches right and gives cover to left-wing populists and illiberals. This issue in particular is one highly associated with the illiberal left, and one where there has been genuine overreach, with the left wing of the Democrats winning over the center-left. The greater danger is simply not the right here. Sure, the right may be wrong, but they are just not beyond the pale in terms of popular and correct opinion like presented here. Equally-or-more-damaging advocacy has been done from the other side of the issue and has had genuine impact.
I’m just one writer, so I don’t think I can claim to represent the full range of views at The UnPopulist. I will say that I am a liberal, through and through, and this is an issue liberals need to care about if they’re going to stand up for pluralism and mutual toleration.
Transgender people are a small minority. They will never possess the political arithmetic to dominate a society, and so we should approach the issue not only as liberals who believe in the open society but as ones who are dedicated to minority rights.
I don’t disagree with a single thing you just said. I suspect that I would agree with your position on most specific policy issues as well. I disagree with the presentation of your article. Everything from the title to the closing words frames eliminationism as a unique threat which deserves special attention and treatment, when it simply isn’t.
If this were a single article, then I would take it as one voice who could be equally weighted by another. The editorial discretion that Shikha, Berny, and the other editors have used has displayed a serious overall bias that detracts from their credibility. This has been increasingly-visible over the past 6-12 months as the Unpopulist has stepped more and more away from wonky topics or ones with an obvious liberal consensus into standard culture war fare. They’re following the same path as the Free Press of initially having a reasonable output and being sucked further and further away to defy their enemies.
I really enjoyed attending Liberalism 2024, even as the tone had already been shifting. I hope they have enough credibility next year to hold Liberalism 2025.
Alan--what I wish you could understand is that this is far beyond rights for a "small minority" of people. If someone believes they are trans, that's fine with me. My relatives who I love believe that you get your own planet when you die, and that's fine with me too. I don't have to believe that people can actually change sex (or be no sex) to respect the rights and needs of someone who is trans identifying. And I should not be forced in my speech or actions to believe "trans women are women" or that a human being in a species with only two sexes (like most other species!) can be "nonbinary." These policies and norms (coming as Reid says from the extreme left) are harmful to society as a whole for a myriad of reasons, which I tried to express in my earlier comment. Please read Helen Joyce's book Trans, which is a few years old but breaks down the issues in a clear way. You will at least better understand where some of us devoted liberals are coming from. Liberals like me and many gay and lesbian and otherwise gender-non-conforming people ARE concerned about vulnerable people and ensuring equal rights. This is why as I said I am opposed to excluding transgender identifying individuals from the military, from employment or housing etc. But it doesn't seem like you really mean "rights" here. Is it a "right" for males who wish to present or be treated as women to be housed with women in prison? (You don't seem to believe it based on other comments here, but there are many, many documented cases at this point of sexual assaults that have resulted from this policy born of gender ideology.) Is it a "right" for a child to relinquish his or her future fertility and health? These changes in law and society are harmful to so many people.
She misrepresents the medical evidence and having briefly allowed that there may be some people who benefit from transition then goes on to conflate every single abuse by anyone who remotely claims to be 'trans' with those of us who have done our best to be accepted by society. It's poor thin stuff.
Oh, and she appears not to have spoken to a single trans person of any stripe about what they think.
That is actually my main complaint about her.
I've also written a blog on my Sub about needing dialogue. I'm not getting it from her.
"But it is advocating a built-in bias for gender-critical views in the marketplace of ideas and demanding that only those be considered valid for organizing society."
I would argue that it is very difficult for advocates on either side to achieve a non-biased framing of the issue. This article certainly does not achieve that.
I would also point out that even the use of the word 'exist' (which is used in a specific way by trans advocates) ends up being a tool to frame the debate... this article being an example.
Yes, "trans" people exist. They're just not what they crack themselves up to be.
This is a disability issue. It has nothing to do with "LGBTQIA+," let alone "Queer."
A person genuinely suffering from a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly) deserves the same decency, compassion and access to medical treatment (if need be) as anyone with a disability. (As for "intersex"? Some people are born with eight toes.)
All the rest is cosplay.
At age 74, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud simply to be myself. I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
Yes, I experience some stereotypically "feminine" emotions. Recognizing that such feelings are perfectly consistent with my male body -- and that this is not a medical problem -- has been absolutely crucial to my self-acceptance as a gay male.
“Gender" (as distinct from biological sex) is a social fiction. Indeed, among gay males, drag is about repudiating and ridiculing the very concept of "gender" -- not "affirming" it. (But enough about drag! What’s become of all the cute guys?)
Meanwhile, the implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance that gay people have otherwise already gained. (Are you there, Scott Bessent?) And the people promoting that frame of reference (thereby emboldening our adversaries) are running a protection racket, at our expense.
Having followed the debate here, I think it needs to be stressed that, while there are some genuinely upsetting anecdotes, there’s no statistical link between trans-inclusive bathroom policies and violence against women. See: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911106
There is, however, good reason to be concerned about the link between trans-exclusive policies and violence against trans people https://metropolitiques.eu/How-Anti-Trans-Bathroom-Bills-Hurt.html
Some stories that broke today
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/federal-employees-told-remove-pronouns-email-signatures-end/story?id=118310483
https://bsky.app/profile/alli.gay/post/3lh2rrnlfz22g
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2025/01/va-patient-died-by-suicide-at-top-of-hospitals-garage-in-syracuse.html
If you want to narrow the conversation to bathrooms, and the evidence you oresent of no problems is correct, perhaps you are right. Most exposures that might be considered intimate, take place within a cubicle. But this seems like a diversion. There are plenty of examples of situations in other female spaces (such as changing rooms, refuges, and prisons), where women have been caused justified embarrassment by the presence of biological men. You seem to be setting up a straw man to divert attention from the problems with your argument.
No, I’m pointing out factual reality that conflicts with an argument that’s been raised here multiple times. It’s been asserted that a key reason to keep trans people out of their preferred bathrooms is physical safety. The evidence suggests the opposite.
No you're not. You're deliberately trying to deal with a minor problem, for which you apparently have some evidence, while avoiding serious issues which you wish to brush over. I'll tell you what the real issues are. They're when women have to go to womens' refuges because of adverse experiences with men and find biological men invading the only places of refuge they can find. When men, who come 170th in male swimming events, win in female events by claiming to be women, and deny womens' sport in its entirely, just to gain a medal. It's when a nurse in Scotland, during her period, finds herself having to undress in front of a biological man, because of Trans policies adopted by her employer. It's when lesbians are abused because they wish to date biological females. It's just disgusting, biological men seeking admission to women only spaces to engage in their perversion, and that's all that needs saying on the subject. It's just another form of male chauvinism, pure and simple, and it needs to be fought in all its manifestations. At least the Trump administration has one one thing right (I don't anticipate many others btw).
GFY
GFY
Obviously this is a highly nuanced debate. Surely it is should be plain that are a wide range of people claiming to be 'trans' but this has simply become a meme. There needs to be awareness that there are actual people who really have a problem and that there are others who take advantage of the compassion towards the former and exploit it. Isn't this obvious?
This article assumes that only one side of this debate is extremist. Jesse Singal, a science journalist who does detailed investigative work on the evidence for and against youth gender medicine, receives 1000s of messages every year from trans activists telling him he deserves to die and urging him to kill himself. Trans activists have demanded that major media outlets (such as the New York Times) stop all reporting on this controversy. Scientists have refused to publish research findings due to fear of how trans activists will respond. While some on the Right want to eliminate transgender individuals, some on the Left want to eliminate detransitioned individuals. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Elrod's contention, one cannot “debate the scope and limit of trans rights” because such debate is effectively forbidden by those who insist upon an endless scope that is not even limited by the rights of others. Matt Walsh and his ilk are crude opportunists, but their views are made to appear legitimate by the extremism of the transgender movement.
I'm not sure which side you think is extremist! But this well written article draws attention to the 'Eliminationist' activists who enforce their version of reality.
They deny that there could be any biological or organic aetiology but in my own blog I routinely cite Professor VS Ramachandran, Dr Milton Diamond and other researchers who have found evidence of organic involvement with the syndrome.
This is not to say that all claims of 'transgenderism' should be accepted. Like all claims they should be subject to some element of triage and testing. Clearly there are a lot of crazy people out there claiming to be 'trans' without any supporting evidence in their lives.
If you would like to consider this in more detail, try looking at my own Substack.
I have definitely heard people say "we need to eliminate Christianity from the public square" without intending to genocide Christians - they mean they would like to get rid of compelled prayers, observances, and other instantiations of public culture that privilege Christian belief over other religious beliefs or no beliefs. I may be too charitable to Walsh and Knowles but I don't think they actually want to eliminate transgender people, they want to get rid of the instantiations of public culture (official Pride weeks, trans day/week/month/year of visibility etc.) and lionization of being trans that has grown up over the past decade. I think they're myopic but I don't think they are genocidal/want to do harm to individual trans people as the Balko quote/your comment on it in the article suggests.
A subtle but important difference is that "We need to eradicate Christianity from public life entirely" has to do with taking steps to de-privilege it from being normatively prioritized in the public square, whereas "We need to eradicate transgenderism from public life entirely" involves choking out very basic forms of social access and individual expression for members of an identity group that are already marginalized. If Walsh and Knowles had their way, trans people wouldn't be able to get certain forms of healthcare they need, social documentation (e.g., passports) they rely on that matches their self-identification, and access to public provisions like bathrooms connected to their gender identities.
Sure. But, devil's advocate, your right to express yourself does not extend to your right to have me face civil or criminal or other official consequences if I don't use your preferred pronouns. *****Personally, I DO use people's preferred pronouns.***** Because I'm not a jerk. But I will fight to the death against anyone who thinks they have the right to punish misgendering or deadnaming. I would be miserable, maybe suicidal, if everyone called me ugly behind my back when I think I'm not and desperately want to be beautiful... but I don't have the right to make people call me beautiful, even if my suicide is the alternative.
You can disrespect people, but you need to accept that has consequences.
Intentionally misgendering your coworkers or students creates a hostile environment and constitutes harassment, just as constantly calling them ugly would. And that is and SHOULD BE grounds for getting disciplined or fired.
And, frankly, the Devil has more than enough legal representation these days...
Yes. You're right. But there's a billion mile wide gap between firing someone for saying rude things, and requiring them to state kind things. DEI pledges are the latter. That way lies a society where everyone has made a pledge nobody believes, because speech is coerced. And we have seen how such societies function. And those societies are uniformly miserable in ways I would not prefer if the alternative were living locked in a house with ol Trumpy and his stupid insults the rest of my days.
But that's only because "misgendering" has been invested with sacred weight and made inviolable, but with no real argument about why. E.g. some people hold the music genre they love the most as the single most important part of their identity - if you "misgenred" then and mistook a cybergoth for a symphonic black metal fan, they would be deeply, deeply offended. But should that preference be protected by law, or by cultural norms against being a jerk to people?
There are contexts where you're not allowed disrespect people without limit, believe it or not! I literally described two of them in the post you're replying to.
Of course but we're discussing "the public square," not workplaces. There are all sorts of restrictions on speech as a result of federal anti-discrimination law.
Also just to say it, I would not intentionally call someone something they don't want to be called because I'm not a jerk. Unless it was like on that episode of Seinfeld where George wanted everyone to call him T-Bone.
Bullshit. You wouldn't call a pedophile a pedophile? You wouldn't call a racist a racist? Bullshit. Don't bullshit yourself. Go introspect.
Accepting that trans people are simply human and trying to live their lives truthfully is not “lionization.” It’s like saying we give special privileged status to minority groups when all that is being called for are basic civil rights that have been denied. Should we ban St. Patrick’s Day parades or Lunar New year’s or Cinquo de Mayo celebrations? Pay attention- the words say they want “transgenderism” ERADICATED. No subtle meaning there.
I would assume a person staunchly against observance of religion in the public square would 100% be opposed to government recognition of St. Patrick's Day, Lunar New Year, or any other ethnic/religious holiday tied to a belief in the supernatural. Cinco de Mayo is sort of a weird relatively recently made up one so I don't know how a hardcore anti-religion person would approach that.
I do wonder whether it would be sufficient to treat it as a freedom of religion issue. Is it enough for people to be free to be trans on the same way that they are free to be Christians? Or are there requirements on other people that go beyond what we normally extend to religions?
That's the challenge, there aren't many religions that claim the state must take certain actions to allow them to practice their religion freely (protestations of various religious conservative groups notwithstanding).
Such an excellent point
Alan, I love your article. I was just delineating yesterday, among my fellow centrist friends (and a couple of progressives), that we need to be willing to debate the scope and limit of trans rights, vs parental rights, the right of *other* prisoners/health insurance customers to have aid in rhinoplasty and other treatments that ameliorate body dysphoria, etc. But your article is a CRUCIAL counterpoint. There is a horde who do not sincerely want to debate. They want to eliminate. Thank you for spelling it out clearly.
Thanks so much, Jason. And I think this is important for people who are not transphobic to understand. There are people trying to gin up the worst emotions and impulses they can
Yes.
100%.
Thankyou for your comment Jason. I am a transsexual woman who has written against the transgender rights narrative and am willing to debate the scope and limits of rights.
The trouble is that few people seem to understand that there is a wide range of 'trans' people and many often blame those of us who have been through the full process and assimilated into society for the things that those who have no wish to and go about abusing their so-called 'rights'. Much on this in my own Substack and here is my book link.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Gender-Postmodernism-Trans-Identity/dp/1914208811/
Thank you kindly, ma'am. It's awkward times. May I just say, I have your back, and imagine it's a lonely path to be off-script within the trans community. Am now a subscriber of yours!
It makes such a difference to my internet experience to read even only occasional views such as you have expressed. Thankyou!
And when are women’s rights to privacy in intimate spaces ever get discussed. When was the last time a trans rights activist or ally was willing to have that discussion? When have you?
I want good lives for gender non-conforming people, safe, and free from housing, work and other discriminations. But why should I have to change in front of a male? Why should women be kicked out of our spaces when we complain about men with genitalia out in our locker rooms. MeToo was just a tag line de jour and now we are the bigots for not wanting to feel vulnerable in women’s spaces.
To your point about a passport, it is not only a marker of your citizenship - it is a largely standardized document that enables us to move between countries. I’m pretty sure the changes to sex markers were not internationally approved. Why not? So now what happens when countries, like Muslim countries, figure out that they can’t trust the sex markers in these documents? It will be the women being told to pull down their pants.
Does allowing trans women in women’s washrooms make cis women less safe? As far as I can tell, no. If you have concrete evidence that shows that trans women are a danger to cis women I would be interested in discussing it.
Does allowing trans women in women’s washrooms make them safer? Evidence would suggest yes, trans women are at great risk of being attacked in men’s washrooms.
Ergo, there’s no good reason not to allow trans women in women’s washrooms and it would greatly improve their safety, so it should be allowed.
https://www.arlnow.com/2025/01/18/charges-against-sex-offender-for-w-l-girls-locker-room-incident-prompt-statement-from-gop/
Ah decent response, although it’s just one example not really statistical evidence. Still here we have a male sex offender abusing a policy which allows trans women to use the correct changing room, which is a common criticism of those policies. Tbh though the bigger story is that a school failed to remove a sexual predator from the premises even after numerous complaints, this could have happened regardless of whether he could pretend to be trans. I think the biggest criticism of trans inclusivity in this story though is that the school might have been scared to act against him because he identified as trans and they didn’t want to be seen as persecuting a trans person. That’s maybe a reason to be a little smarter in being inclusive of trans people than a full indictment of inclusivity though.
I think though the real problem here is that the school let a known sexual predator have access to vulnerable people, less so than letting a man into women’s spaces. Without an inclusive changing room policy he still could have just gone into the women’s changing room anyway (criminals aren’t usually stopped by rules) or exposed himself in the men’s changing room. I’m sympathetic to the argument that sexual predators can abuse trans inclusive policies to gain access to victims, but it’s far from the only way they have to do so and I don’t know how effective it really is in most cases (the school should have banned him for being a sex offender, regardless of gender).
Women's rights to privacy in intimate spaces are the entire issue here. Some women are being deprived of that right and being forced to go into men's intimate spaces. Why should they have to change in front of a man? If that is such a terrible experience, why do you want to inflict it on trans women?
See how that sounds when it's reversed? You are begging the question by saying this is about "women's rights to privacy in intimate spaces" (which is something you don't really have already, since other women are in those spaces with you). The pro-trans reply is that transwomen are other women, so your right to privacy is unchanged if they are in the same space as you.
The pro-trans movement is often criticized for defining gender as some kind of metaphysical essence. However, much of the anti-trans arguments seems to rest on the idea that men have some kind of evil essence that will cast a bad juju on women if they are allowed into private spaces. If that is the case, isn't the easiest solution just to accept that transwomen don't cast bad juju? Lots of cis women have done that, there are plenty who are fine with transwomen in the same spaces as them. Feel free to believe that transwomen are men or women, whichever you want, if they are women they won't cast a bad juju on you, if they are men then they aren't the kind of men who do.
Trans women are males who want to live their lives socially as women. They stay males throughout their lives.
You're not understanding that there are transsexuals who have neurology that is more female than male. If they have the medical reassignment then that should be taken into account as forcing them to use men's spaces would put *them* at risk. This amounts to persecution.
well, of course.
Trans is an identity based on a feeling. There is no way to objectively verify a person's claim that he or she is the opposite of his or her biological sex. In no other area of human life do we accept a person's claim about themselves without asking for evidence, whether it is nationality, profession, marital status, etc. "I really feel like I am married to this person so I should receive their social security check when they die".
People who deal with gender dysphoria by identifying as trans have every right to live life however they choose and to be free from discrimination in all areas of human life where biological sex plays no role. Almost all employment fits that criteria. Almost all housing. And we can debate in just what areas of human life biological sex truly needs to be acknowledged. Elite sports certainly seems to be one such area. Medicine is another. Biological sex, not gender identity, Differences in response to medications and differences in susceptibility to certain diseases and conditions correlate with biological sex, not gender identity.
I do oppose demands of trans-identifying individuals to be legally recognized as having a gender opposite to their biological sex. And I am unwilling to go along with their demands that society, including myself, affirm their claims about themselves. Donald Trump insists he is a genius. Do I have to accept that claim when there is absolutely no evidence?
I am entitled to my view of gender just as much as they are entitled to theirs. I am not demanding that they accept the binary view. They should not demand that I accept their belief in gender fluidity.
,
I find that it's a lot easier to recognize the legitimacy of the "feeling" that trans is based on is to imagine hypothetical scenarios where you'd have the same feeling. For instance, imagine a mad scientist transplanted your brain into a body of the opposite sex. In such a scenario, are you justified in being upset about your situation and seeking to reverse it?
Or imagine you were transplanted into a robot body without any primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Would you be justified in still thinking of yourself as a man or a woman in that situation?
When I posit such scenarios to anti-trans activists, they usually have no reply other than that they are "absurd." That indicates to me that they haven't really thought the issue through, and probably don't want to.
What you are asking people to imagine is what at least some trans people claim describes their situation. "I was born in the wrong body". But there is no physical evidence for such a claim. What is a female brain? It is my understanding that there are some small differences between male and female brains, but I have not heard of any studies showing that trans people have the body of one sex but the brain of the other.
And what does it mean to "feel like a woman"? Before you can say "I feel like a woman", you have to define what a woman is. Then you have to explain how you have learned what it feels like to be that kind of human. You also have to decide how much of that feeling is innate and how much is ingrained societal expectations. And if you define a woman as anyone who feels like he/she is a woman, then the definition is meaningless, useless and you are trapped in circular logic.
Trans people talk about being erased. One could make the argument that men who identify as women and insist they are "women, full stop!" are seeking to erase what it has always meant, until the 21st century, to be a woman, namely an adult human of the female sex. Now, according to trans thinking, to be a woman is nothing more than a feeling. But then to add to the illogic of it all, many trans people seek to change their bodies via hormones and surgery to "align" them with their felt gender, basically acknowledging the biological definition of male and female.
This is all a belief system, an illogical one to me, but still as much deserving of protection as other beliefs, to the extent that it does not harm non-believers. No one should face discrimination or harassment or censure for beliefs that do not harm others. But they cannot demand that others become believers.
There is some evidence actually. VS Ramachandran, Professor of Neuropsychology at San Diego University published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies in 2007 on the phenomenon of 'phantom limbs' or rather 'phantom penises' in female to male transsexuals.
His hypothesis to explain this is a neurological discrepancy between brain mapping and the body. Brain structure and mapping is his speciality and he gave the Reith Lectures about 20 years ago, on the subject of language, metaphor and brain mapping including the shared neural links between hands and voice. Complicated stuff and he is a world expert on brain mapping.
He also indicated that there was some evidence for a reverse condition for male to female transsexuals who felt that their male genitalia shouldn't be there. I had that.
I have some private correspondence from an Emeritus Professor of Psychobiology who wrote to me about my book saying that he thought it was 'full of good scholarship and clear thinking.' He added that 'of course' he agreed with my views (that this condition has an organic basis in neurology).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Gender-Postmodernism-Trans-Identity/dp/1914208811/
There are also research papers from the likes of Gooren & Zhou, Professor Julie Bakkar and Dr Milton Diamond. It's funny how these papers get ignored by people who are ideologically opposed to the concept. Confirmation bias.
I am nodding my head as I read this comment. I do think there is a difference between opposing ideology and “eliminationism.” Those who actually pursue the latter in the guise of the former should be called out. As a libertarian, I very much prefer to pursue the path that achieves the maximum amount of “live and let live.” But that’s not simple here. I have a trans family member; none of this is simple.
The author seems to acknowledge that even if we remove eliminationism from the debate, as we should, we will still have much to debate. And this piece glosses over just how difficult that is:
“Now that trans people, unwilling to keep pretending that they don’t exist, are trying to eke out some space for themselves, they are unsettling long-standing social structures based on binary assumptions. What these structures should be replaced with will be debated and discussed. It is not obvious to many what kind of social structures would allow them space without diminishing it for others.”
Indeed. It may be not obvious to the author, but in certain areas, it is quite obvious that activism has produced wrong-headed and dangerous outcomes.
To the previous comment’s topics identifying areas where biological sex cannot/should not be ignored, I would add transgender prison housing assignment, battered women’s shelters, rape crisis centers, etc. Serious abuses and harm have been documented as a result of blind ideological implementation of the trans agenda.
But all means, let’s get eliminationism out of the debate, and let’s also remove ideological activism from it. Both make reasoned discussion impossible.
For things like prisons and shelters, it seems pretty obvious that the issue is genitalia shape, not "biological sex," to the extent that those two are different. If a transwoman has had a vaginoplasty it seems like a terrible idea to put her in a men's prison, or to deny her access to a rape crisis center if some guy raped her.
I'm glad to read someone saying this! Isn't it obvious?
I was talking about this whole issue the other day with a close female friend whom I have known for twelve years or more and she said 'I've never thought of you as anything other than a woman'.
Three years ago I was taken ill and had to spend a couple of nights in hospital. I was sent straight to a female assessment ward. This was the same hospital where I had had my medical reassignment some forty years ago, so clearly my medical notes would indicate my status.
Had I simply claimed that I was 'transgender' without any supporting evidence that I had had the medical treatment, looked like a man and was still morphologically an intact male then I expect I would have been sent to a men's ward.
Basic common sense needs to be employed. Some of the comments on this thread are so ideologically hostile that it seems they would rather see me humiliated, and possibly r**ed should I be unfortunate or ill advised enough to get myself detained at His Majesty's pleasure.
I have never suffered a complaint concerning my use of women's toilets and I used to be a nurse. I was accepted.
I am transsexual and I accept the sex binary. But there are anomalies and grey areas, some of which are already understood, and others less so. If someone, like me, is anomalous and fits more readily into society after medical reassignment, should I be forced to use men's toilets? I have my dignity and to go into a men's toilet could well be seen as soliciting.
This is an issue rarely addressed by eliminationists.
You do not acknowledge here that the institution of gender ideology beliefs (yes, I call it that, because it is a belief system that people's self-expressed gender supersedes sex) in our law and norms has harmed other vulnerable groups, particularly women and children.
You do not acknowledge the scandalous medical ramifications of this ideology being embedded in our institutions (state laws, federal executive orders, insurance, norms, etc.) in destroying the healthy bodies and fertility of children, who cannot consent to these drastic interventions, based on what has clearly proven to be ideologically-based poor science in multiple scientific systematic reviews. Simply look at the UK and Europe, which have pulled away from "gender affirming care," as there is no evidence it does good and so much evidence that does harm.
You do not acknowledge the rapes and sexual assaults of women in prison and shelters who have been subjected to sharing their housing with males who say they are women, usually males with fully intact genitals who can simply state they are a woman to have access to women's spaces. It is an inconvenient truth, but you cannot “affirm” the wish of trans women to be seen as women and keep biological women safe.
You do not acknowledge how Title 9 has been gutted, forcing women and girls to compete unfairly against male athletes. Pride of accomplishment and the loss of scholarships and careers for women has resulted.
You do not acknowledge how this ideology has torn so many families apart.
These are ALSO vulnerable people who have been harmed. It's a five-alarm fire, requiring some drastic measures. The army of detransitioners speaking up should be some evidence for you to consider.
And finally, you do not acknowledge that many liberals and progressives, feminists, gay and lesbian people and trans people, have been trying desperately to talk about the "scope and limits" for many years, without being allowed our reasonable concerns to be expressed. (As an important correction to your piece, Kellie-Jay Keen is not a feminist, by her own self-definition and is not considered a gender critical feminist by others.) If you would like links to writing from these folks, I’m happy to provide it if you are not familiar with them.
For many years, the mantra was "no debate," so our reasonable concerns could not make it into public discourse. We have been silenced and cancelled, even fired. We never wanted people who identify as trans to be hurt or "eliminated." I think many religious ideas are hogwash, but I want people to be free to be who they are, as long as there are not public policies which impinge on the rights and safety of others. Maybe Matt Walsh wants to "eliminate" trans people, I don't know. But many of us opposed to this ideology do not want to take away anyone's rights. I am utterly against trans individuals being excluded from the military, for example. There may have to be accommodation made that balance everyone's needs, but if someone wants to serve our country, they should be allowed to do so.
I also acknowledge that, especially given the extreme rhetoric and fear-mongering about "trans genocide" in recent years, there is much real fear and pain in these communities. I wish the approach Trump took was less chaotic and cruel, but I agree with the gist of the orders: sex, not gender identity, should be what public policy is based upon.
Most Americans agree with this position, based on polls. We are not really that divided about it. And because the left and the Democrats would not listen to us—believe me, we who have been lifelong Democrats have tried and tried, for many years—we are here in this dangerous place with Donald Trump and billionaires in charge. I am able to hold two truths at the same time: Donald Trump is an existential threat to our nation…and gender identity ideology is very harmful and I celebrate its being curbed so more children are not harmed.
I am a conservative and have no truck and little patience for social progressivism and think the trans-activists and trans-hysterics are both wrong in their approach to this issue. But what I think is really irrelevant.
I guess you are unaware that women have been raping women (and men raping men) in prisons for a long time. However most of the same sex activity among both men and women
is consensual. It is quite possible that a trans-woman with a penis might also be quite popular in a female prison... as many gay men are in in men's institutions. And when it comes to safety how safe would a man with a surgically created vulva and vagina be in a a male prison?
Like many you have no real life experience of the social and psychological dynamics of prison life. I bring this up because the danger of "prison rape" seems to be a running thread throughout the anti-trans discourse.
All I know from the conservative point of view is that trans-women have been using women's spaces since at least 1953 and has not been an issue until trans-persons started "coming out" and a greater number of people have begun to identify themselves that way. So as long as no one knew who was trans it was not a problem. I remember when gay men and lesbians were "accepted" so long as they didn't "flaunt" there orientation in front of others---especially children.
You are correct in your assumption that I have no personal experience in prisons. I am in contact with women in prison or who have been in prison however, so I base my observations on what they tell me and what is reported. I am also familiar with the law, at least in California. Before the law changed in California and elsewhere to allow self-ID, trans identified males in women's prisons did not seem to be a problem, from what I know. I have no idea if it goes back to 1953, but I know it goes back a few years. These individuals were vetted on a case by case basis by prison officials. When the law changed to allow any male who wishes to be housed with women based on how they "identified", many, more men entered women's prisons. And the rapes and sexual assaults that have resulted are well documented. Whether some of these relationships are desired and consensual is entirely irrelevant. Prisons are supposed to be places where people have a chance to rehabilitate while they pay their debt to society. They are not supposed to be places of terror and torture.
What prisons are supposed to be is not the reality of what they are.
I do agree that "self-ID" (the trans-activist position) is an irrational basis for deciding who goes where. I am also pretty sure someone who is not on a hormone regimen and still has a penis should be assigned to a male facility.
However if the trans person is on an adequate hormonal regimen usually then
Erections: People taking estrogen experience fewer erections, and the erections they do have are less firm or shorter.
Libido: Estrogen reduces a person's interest in sex, or libido.
Ejaculation: People taking estrogen experience a decrease in ejaculation.
Sperm count: Estrogen reduces or eliminate sperm count.
Testicular size: Estrogen causes the testicles to shrink.
Additionally persons, even at the preoperative stage GENERALLY perceive themselves as heterosexual women and do not see themselves as lesbian and therefore don't generally have a desire to have sex with women consensual or otherwise. YES I KNOW THERE ARE ANECDOTAL OUTLIARS. But again the "problem" has been exaggerated by trans-hysterics to add to their ideological argument and not the safety or needs of female prisoners.
Ironically state laws banning the hormonal treatment for trans prisoners only makes the problem worse and provides less safety for everyone.
I'm very glad that someone has pointed out that prior to 'self identification' there didn't seem to be a problem, presumably because the transsexual women who found themselves locked up had all had reassignment surgeries.
Now that anyone with a penis can claim to be a woman, then obviously this is going to be abused.
This is the real problem, not transsexuals who have had a lifelong problem leading to medical reassignment.
You expressed this perfectly
❤️
I’ve come to this essay late, but I would like to add to your list that he does not acknowledge the many families (my own included) who have been traumatized and sometimes almost torn apart by the almost Marxist-Leninist accusations against those who would dare question or discuss these new iterations on a life we thought we understood. And as you note, it is the almost sacrosanct status that’s been afforded to gender ideology, a sacrosanctness that has largely translated into people being shunned, fired, isolated, mocked and reviled for even daring to question its most basic tenets, that is for me, the biggest red flag.
Thank you for this post. It’s clear and shows the malefic intentions behind much of the anti-trans thinkers. Given trans people have more visibility than we used to, I guess it was inevitable there was a backlash. With Trump in office, the backlash has become serious and existentially threatening. I think this too shall pass but for that to happen, clarity must prevail. Thank you again —
The backlash would either not have happened at all, or would have been much less severe if there had not been so much abuse of claimed privilege over the last decade.
Most people know next to nothing about the issue and only go by what they see or hear in the media. They see all these transgenders with their 'female penises' demanding entrance to female spaces and they see the number of children being rushed through reassignment and they see all those who regret what they have done and they come to a conclusion against it all.
Does anyone think this would have happened organically if we hadn't had a decade or more of 'self ID', gender ideology and tampons in boys bathrooms? This is what Trump is against. He's not someone who does nuance!
Of course it's an over reaction but I have enough faith in humanity to look to a time when the pendulum will swing back. But hopefully not back to where it was last year say.
For myself, I despise all those TG activists who have claimed my identity and then told me that I am 'oppressive' for having done everything that was asked of me in order to assimilate over the last forty years.
Too many dilettantes have poisoned the well and we now have to reclaim our territory.
Deciding not to recognise the category doesn't make the people not exist. Instead, the definition shifts to "people claiming a certain identity" rather than "people who are something", which seems sensible.
I'm an older liberal who never got on board with gender-as-identity; I think tolerance without validation or recognition is a fine way to approach this issue.
“The Devil hates humanity ... so he tries to cut away at the very core of humanity.”
In this thinking, "the very core of humanity" is something that humans share with mice, and with most animal species. Being human is not about soul or spirit or heart or mind; it's simply about generating other humans.
Natcon Christians seem to be absolutely fixated on biological reproduction and what they assume to be traditional gender roles, to the neglect of other religious or human values. (How else could they have made Donald Trump their hero?)
I have at times responded to extreme notions about gender - e.g., "gender is a spectrum" or "gender is a social construction" - by mentioning the fact that virtually all animals are clearly recognized as either male or female; virtually every human society that we know of recognizes male/female in the same way; and the whole concept of "gender" originates in "engendering." I have also brought up data showing that gender dysphoria in children usually disappears with natural puberty.
BUT, I also recognize that the gender binary is not biologically always so absolute as tradcons claim; that some people identify as nonbinary and actually seem gender-ambiguous; and that some people who are profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex do become happier after transitioning, and then go on to be productive and act like normal people, not mentally disturbed. It is not for me to say that adults should have dealt with their discomfort in a different way. Humans with mind and spirit should make those decisions for themselves.
The effort to eradicate "transgenderism" can be seen as a war against things that set humans apart from other animal species.
It isn't even factually correct either. There are lots of depictions of sexy female demons and muscular male demons.
Over and over I keep hearing single incident anecdotes as evidence of a wide spread phenomenon that simply doesn't exist. Trans-women are by the numbers simply not a threat to the safety of women and children.
I also find it interesting that this exclusively about women's safety with no discussion of the safety of trans-women. Apparently women transitioning to men have no place in the conversation.
I think (and I admit what I think doesn't matter) that the degree of transitioning of the individual person (not their DNA) should be the common sense guide which both trans-activists and trans-hysterics won't accept.
A person who appears to be a woman (even with a penis) goes into the women's room and a woman with chest hair and a beard (even with a vagina) goes to the men's.
A trans-woman with a penis probably ought to not go into either a men's or women's locker room. Same with a trans-man with a vagina.
Women's athletics is a whole different kettle of fish and I don't think anyone has come up with a good way of handling it. But I think, for the time being, trans-women should not be playing in women's competitions or sports teams. However I once knew a girl from a very small town in Kansas who played American football on a men's team and was one of their best players!
However exclusion does become the gateway to elimination and that is the goal of Christian Nationalists who are gaining ascendency in our political ecosystem.
As a one nation conservative I believe that it is important to find a way of integrating all citizens into society. Trans-women, and more recently trans-men, have been living in our midst since 1953. Many of these people were professionals who "came out" as trans only after they retired. And for trans-persons of that era becoming and perceived as women was the whole point. They were known and accepted as women throughout most of their lives. It is because more people are coming out, or just exploring their gender identity, and medicine has improved the outcomes of transitioning to a different sex, that this has become a problem.
It is not up to the government to decide how trans-persons should be treated (except for enforcing the laws against assault, rape and murder, etc.) the laws. And also discrimination in employment, housing, accommodations etc. Let the market and individual businesses and organizations decide how to handle the trans-people in their midst. If you don't like their decisions--- don't patronize them.
I personally think the gender identity pronoun war is just silly. Civilized and polite people simply refer to people as they prefer. I prefer to be called "Griff" and not Harley. My personal pronouns are it/its. I think that while sex is a given gender is largely a construct, yes tied to sex but socially determined. I believe that we are born non-binary and that biological sex is not destiny.
And, as with everything the antisocial media has had a detrimental effect on rational thought about the subject of gender identity and sexuality.
It’s highly frustrating that the Unpopulist presents itself as against populism and as a bastion of reasonable liberalism but in practice exclusively punches right and gives cover to left-wing populists and illiberals. This issue in particular is one highly associated with the illiberal left, and one where there has been genuine overreach, with the left wing of the Democrats winning over the center-left. The greater danger is simply not the right here. Sure, the right may be wrong, but they are just not beyond the pale in terms of popular and correct opinion like presented here. Equally-or-more-damaging advocacy has been done from the other side of the issue and has had genuine impact.
I’m just one writer, so I don’t think I can claim to represent the full range of views at The UnPopulist. I will say that I am a liberal, through and through, and this is an issue liberals need to care about if they’re going to stand up for pluralism and mutual toleration.
Transgender people are a small minority. They will never possess the political arithmetic to dominate a society, and so we should approach the issue not only as liberals who believe in the open society but as ones who are dedicated to minority rights.
I don’t disagree with a single thing you just said. I suspect that I would agree with your position on most specific policy issues as well. I disagree with the presentation of your article. Everything from the title to the closing words frames eliminationism as a unique threat which deserves special attention and treatment, when it simply isn’t.
If this were a single article, then I would take it as one voice who could be equally weighted by another. The editorial discretion that Shikha, Berny, and the other editors have used has displayed a serious overall bias that detracts from their credibility. This has been increasingly-visible over the past 6-12 months as the Unpopulist has stepped more and more away from wonky topics or ones with an obvious liberal consensus into standard culture war fare. They’re following the same path as the Free Press of initially having a reasonable output and being sucked further and further away to defy their enemies.
I really enjoyed attending Liberalism 2024, even as the tone had already been shifting. I hope they have enough credibility next year to hold Liberalism 2025.
It's a threat to people like me.
Alan--what I wish you could understand is that this is far beyond rights for a "small minority" of people. If someone believes they are trans, that's fine with me. My relatives who I love believe that you get your own planet when you die, and that's fine with me too. I don't have to believe that people can actually change sex (or be no sex) to respect the rights and needs of someone who is trans identifying. And I should not be forced in my speech or actions to believe "trans women are women" or that a human being in a species with only two sexes (like most other species!) can be "nonbinary." These policies and norms (coming as Reid says from the extreme left) are harmful to society as a whole for a myriad of reasons, which I tried to express in my earlier comment. Please read Helen Joyce's book Trans, which is a few years old but breaks down the issues in a clear way. You will at least better understand where some of us devoted liberals are coming from. Liberals like me and many gay and lesbian and otherwise gender-non-conforming people ARE concerned about vulnerable people and ensuring equal rights. This is why as I said I am opposed to excluding transgender identifying individuals from the military, from employment or housing etc. But it doesn't seem like you really mean "rights" here. Is it a "right" for males who wish to present or be treated as women to be housed with women in prison? (You don't seem to believe it based on other comments here, but there are many, many documented cases at this point of sexual assaults that have resulted from this policy born of gender ideology.) Is it a "right" for a child to relinquish his or her future fertility and health? These changes in law and society are harmful to so many people.
Check out my reviews of Helen Joyce's book.
She misrepresents the medical evidence and having briefly allowed that there may be some people who benefit from transition then goes on to conflate every single abuse by anyone who remotely claims to be 'trans' with those of us who have done our best to be accepted by society. It's poor thin stuff.
Oh, and she appears not to have spoken to a single trans person of any stripe about what they think.
That is actually my main complaint about her.
I've also written a blog on my Sub about needing dialogue. I'm not getting it from her.
https://claireraerandall.substack.com/p/review-of-helen-joyce-trans-when
https://claireraerandall.substack.com/p/review-of-helen-joyce-trans-when-4e2
It's almost like they present a broad variety of views and expect you to make up your own mind. The monsters!
I appreciate you covering the topic of transgenderism in a thoughtful and courteous manner.
"But it is advocating a built-in bias for gender-critical views in the marketplace of ideas and demanding that only those be considered valid for organizing society."
I would argue that it is very difficult for advocates on either side to achieve a non-biased framing of the issue. This article certainly does not achieve that.
I would also point out that even the use of the word 'exist' (which is used in a specific way by trans advocates) ends up being a tool to frame the debate... this article being an example.
Yes, "trans" people exist. They're just not what they crack themselves up to be.
This is a disability issue. It has nothing to do with "LGBTQIA+," let alone "Queer."
A person genuinely suffering from a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly) deserves the same decency, compassion and access to medical treatment (if need be) as anyone with a disability. (As for "intersex"? Some people are born with eight toes.)
All the rest is cosplay.
At age 74, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud simply to be myself. I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
Yes, I experience some stereotypically "feminine" emotions. Recognizing that such feelings are perfectly consistent with my male body -- and that this is not a medical problem -- has been absolutely crucial to my self-acceptance as a gay male.
“Gender" (as distinct from biological sex) is a social fiction. Indeed, among gay males, drag is about repudiating and ridiculing the very concept of "gender" -- not "affirming" it. (But enough about drag! What’s become of all the cute guys?)
Meanwhile, the implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance that gay people have otherwise already gained. (Are you there, Scott Bessent?) And the people promoting that frame of reference (thereby emboldening our adversaries) are running a protection racket, at our expense.
Modern style of bigotry and hate is to say things such as "I am against transgender ideology" = I am against equality and acceptance