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.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You inflate any and all opposition to “the transgender agenda” into opposition (even hatred) towards transgender people’s wish to live their lives within society. It’s not. People who suffer gender dysphoria and who do or do not choose to act on their discomfort, by lifestyle change, drugs or reassignment surgery, represent about 0.1pc of the population. That’s tiny but it’s not nothing - it’s a lot of people unhappy in the bodies they were born with. But still, ALL of the controversy about transgender concerns ONLY biological males who identify as females. So that’s 0.05pc of the population, yet the noise they make, the hate they send out is beyond ridiculous. JK Rowling is the most famous target of this hatred; she’s rich, and strong and will survive, but dozens and dozens of non-wealthy people have lost their jobs and been cancelled for simply saying what Rowling did, the self-evident truth: that biological males are not women. Your long, long screed evades that simple point - I think you do protesteth too much.,
Many of my friends are very concerned about this reciprocal cancel culture.
There needs to be a distinction made between transsexuals who are serious about their reassignment and transgenders who simply want to role play or get into women's spaces.
Going on about transsexuals simply being 'biological males' without understanding the condition and background history of the subject is simply a matter of imposing ignorance.
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.
I find it unfathomable that people regard Erin Reed as a "journalist." Just because you call yourself one, doesn't make you one. This might also apply to other self-professed labels.
But alas, I am a grown woman of color who does real work in justice and social change and is tired of white liberals dictating things for the rest of us.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
Unpopulist writers can be very narrow-minded and woke when it comes to transgender issues. "Evan," a libertarian-leaning philanthropist, didn't believe in Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria, until it happened to his own daughter, "Emma", and other girls in her school system. Emma identified as transgender for a month, then stopped identifying as transgender, like at least four other girls in her progressive school system. Today, she is a well-adjusted cisgender girl ready to go off to college. A progressive busybody attempted to take Emma away from Evan and her mother based on her purported transgender status. A 2019 National Review article tells part of the story of "Evan" and Emma." When Evan sent a link to the National Review article to a man who has written for the Unpopulist, implying that he was the "Evan" in the article, the man who has written for the Unpopulist soon thereafter tweeted to the whole world that parents who don't affirm the gender identity of their children are "child abusers." He was referring to "Evan", when he was talking about child-abusers, even though nothing in the National Review story suggests that Evan was an abusive parent and Emma doesn't think Evan is an abuser (and even though "Evan" had once represented a transgender-rights group in a pro-bono lawsuit, and Evan had once quoted the Unpopulist writer in an op-ed). "Evan" told me he will never forget this act of hostility and narrow-minded wokeness, as long as he lives.
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.
“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.
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
I appreciate you covering the topic of transgenderism in a thoughtful and courteous manner.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You inflate any and all opposition to “the transgender agenda” into opposition (even hatred) towards transgender people’s wish to live their lives within society. It’s not. People who suffer gender dysphoria and who do or do not choose to act on their discomfort, by lifestyle change, drugs or reassignment surgery, represent about 0.1pc of the population. That’s tiny but it’s not nothing - it’s a lot of people unhappy in the bodies they were born with. But still, ALL of the controversy about transgender concerns ONLY biological males who identify as females. So that’s 0.05pc of the population, yet the noise they make, the hate they send out is beyond ridiculous. JK Rowling is the most famous target of this hatred; she’s rich, and strong and will survive, but dozens and dozens of non-wealthy people have lost their jobs and been cancelled for simply saying what Rowling did, the self-evident truth: that biological males are not women. Your long, long screed evades that simple point - I think you do protesteth too much.,
Many of my friends are very concerned about this reciprocal cancel culture.
There needs to be a distinction made between transsexuals who are serious about their reassignment and transgenders who simply want to role play or get into women's spaces.
Going on about transsexuals simply being 'biological males' without understanding the condition and background history of the subject is simply a matter of imposing ignorance.
I do think body modification surgery and hormones should maybe wait until the age of 18 and I don’t think this should be controversial!
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.
I find it unfathomable that people regard Erin Reed as a "journalist." Just because you call yourself one, doesn't make you one. This might also apply to other self-professed labels.
You seem like a polite young man.
And not surprised that your response is sarcasm.
But alas, I am a grown woman of color who does real work in justice and social change and is tired of white liberals dictating things for the rest of us.
"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.
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.
It's almost like they present a broad variety of views and expect you to make up your own mind. The monsters!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unpopulist writers can be very narrow-minded and woke when it comes to transgender issues. "Evan," a libertarian-leaning philanthropist, didn't believe in Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria, until it happened to his own daughter, "Emma", and other girls in her school system. Emma identified as transgender for a month, then stopped identifying as transgender, like at least four other girls in her progressive school system. Today, she is a well-adjusted cisgender girl ready to go off to college. A progressive busybody attempted to take Emma away from Evan and her mother based on her purported transgender status. A 2019 National Review article tells part of the story of "Evan" and Emma." When Evan sent a link to the National Review article to a man who has written for the Unpopulist, implying that he was the "Evan" in the article, the man who has written for the Unpopulist soon thereafter tweeted to the whole world that parents who don't affirm the gender identity of their children are "child abusers." He was referring to "Evan", when he was talking about child-abusers, even though nothing in the National Review story suggests that Evan was an abusive parent and Emma doesn't think Evan is an abuser (and even though "Evan" had once represented a transgender-rights group in a pro-bono lawsuit, and Evan had once quoted the Unpopulist writer in an op-ed). "Evan" told me he will never forget this act of hostility and narrow-minded wokeness, as long as he lives.
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.
“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.