The Problems with Debra Soh's The End Of Gender | Trans Deeper #3

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Last time, we looked at the reaction to Debra Soh's The End Of Gender among gender critical feminist circles, and what we can learn from that. This time, I want to look at what is in the book itself.

The End Of Gender claims to debunk 'the myths about sex and identity in our society' in a way that is 'backed by science and facts'. This alone had got me excited, because I believe the current discourse around sex and gender has too much unscientific philosophy and theory, and too little reference to the facts of biological science. However, when I actually got the opportunity to read the book, I was left a little disappointed, to be honest. The book emphasizes the need to do good science and resist unscientific biases and social pressures throughout, but I don't think it has lived up to this promise in reality. In particular, as someone with both undergraduate and postgraduate academic training in the medical sciences, I found plenty of things to be concerned about in the book.

Firstly, let's talk about the style of writing. The book mixes scientific findings, anecdotal information, and the author's own opinions throughout. The latter two are clearly not scientific, but the book does not clearly enough demarcate what is and isn't of scientific standard, in my opinion. An even bigger problem is that it mixes plenty of culture war stories in with descriptions of the science. These culture war stories are particularly familiar to those of us who follow right-leaning news media regularly (I follow news media from across the political spectrum regularly, because my political views don't fit neatly into a box, and because I want to hear all sides of the story). I mean, if I had wanted a greatest hits of conservative culture war stories, I would have read Dave Rubin's books instead. I really think it is inappropriate to include culture war stuff in books supposedly about the science, because it could bias the overall impression readers get, even if the science presented is otherwise sound.

The problem with casually mixing scientific findings and anecdotal information is that readers can get confused about what is fact, and what is merely opinion. This is especially problematic since the book covered plenty of areas where research is currently relatively lacking, including gender dysphoria in childhood and non-binary gender identities. For example, Soh offers a lot of thoughts on why people might be identifying as non-binary, but this is not backed by any vigorous research data. She even suggests that trans people who subsequently switch to non-binary identification sound 'like they are experiencing transition regret', a statement not backed up by any solid evidence, and also not consistent with what I have observed about such people in the trans community. Later on, Soh states that 'gender identity is flexible in children', even though this is by no means scientifically established to be true for every individual. I personally have had gender dysphoria since before age 3, and my own gender identity has been stable since the beginning, for example.

The book also presents highly controversial theories as if they were fact. The biggest example of this is the Blanchard typology of trans people, which has been repeatedly challenged and debunked. As a trans person who has seen the whole range of the diversity in the trans community, I definitely know that there are plenty of trans women who don't fit into the two boxes prescribed by the Blanchard typology. Proponents of the Blanchard typology have never satisfactorily addressed this problem, and this book is no exception. Soh also states that biological sex 'is defined not by chromosomes or our genitals or hormonal profiles, but by gametes'. However, this view is not universally accepted by scientists, and as Soh later illustrates, there are plenty of exceptions to this 'rule', which means that it is not a better way to define biological sex compared with chromosomes, for example. The fact remains that the commonly accepted ways to define biological sex (chromosomes, reproductive organs, gametes, and so on) all have 'exceptions to the rule', and they don't 100% line up either. Soh's rejection of this area of ambiguity is not good science, in my opinion. This is actually not directly related to trans issues, because we are talking about ways to define biological sex and not gender here. However, there is currently a wish by some people for a simple rule to reliably classify every individual on Earth by biological sex, usually to serve trans-skeptical political agendas, and I am worried that the way Soh rejected the gray areas in biology could fuel this unscientific sentiment. Good science should be upheld, even if it does not deliver what some people want.

There is also an outrightly incorrect statement. Soh says that transmedicalism is 'to question whether nonbinary people are the same as trans people'. In reality, the defining belief of transmedicalism is 'one needs gender dysphoria to be trans'. Transmeds have a variety of views on non-binary people, and many actually accept non-binary people with dysphoria as fulfilling their definition. While this is not a major theme in the book, it just shows how Soh has an inadequately clear understanding of the trans community, and the different stances of the various 'factions' within the community. Given this, I think it is legitimate to question the soundness of her commentary on the state of the trans community.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is still a good thing that Soh has promoted and emphasized the need to take a science and facts based approach in examining issues around gender. There are still plenty of things in the book that are actually scientifically sound, and this is more than can be said for many opinion pieces about gender issues these days, for example. However, if we want people to adopt a more scientific approach in their views of gender, we must start by doing good science in a consistent way. Using my academic training in the medical sciences, I judge that this book has failed to do that.

It's OK to be Frustrated at the Priorities of Trans Activism | Trans Realist #2

Let's talk about the trans 1% vs 99%

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

As I said last time, one of the most important things I want to do is to ask the difficult questions about where we are going, as a community. Last time, I talked about different kinds of visibility, and their ability to bring about either acceptance or backlash. This time, I will explore a related question: the priorities of the trans activist establishment, and where they are leading us to, as a community.

I know for a fact that many trans people are actually frustrated about where the loudest activist voices are taking our community and our priorities right now. At a time when many members of our community are still struggling with the basics of life, when many of us live in fear of the building resentment and backlash to current trans activism and what real life effects that is translating into, the activist establishment is basically refusing to even listen to our concerns with an open mind. What is perhaps making it worse is that most trans people want to live a quiet life, and don't want to speak about trans issues on a big platform that will attract attention to themselves. This perhaps represents the silent majority of trans people, and they practically don't have a voice against the loudest activists. Hence, the loudest activists continue to claim to represent us as a community without being challenged much, and people in the mainstream media, who are often well intentioned but don't really understand us, think that's all there is to our community.

What I am worried about is that, as things stand, the plight of the trans community is divided between a 1% and a 99%, and will stay like this for the foreseeable future. The 1% consists of trans activists, public intellectuals, celebrities, athletes, successful writers and the like, who receive unprecedented access to the spotlight in this new era of trans visibility. Even though they are often at the center of much controversy and backlash, they still receive lots of support and admiration from others, thus overall it is still a good life for them. Their lives are often removed from the needs and concerns of everyday trans people, and some of them, either out of lack of awareness or a need to stay interesting and relevant, will act in ways that cause resentment and backlash to the trans community. Once again, some of this backlash will be felt personally, but it will usually be more than compensated for by support and admiration from others. However, the rest of the backlash will fall on the 99%, the everyday trans people who just want to live their quiet, unremarkable lives. These trans people live in constant fear that the next wave of backlash could result in the removal of existing protections and rights that allow them to live at their current level of comfort. For them, the prospect of living a quiet life in peace is under constant threat, like living on an island that is frequently visited by powerful hurricanes. As the trans-related political climate gets more and more toxic, the fear gets worse, just like how as climate change gets worse, people living on islands have to fear powerful hurricanes more and more. For the trans 99%, life is helpless, and it doesn't look like getting better anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the trans community having public figures is a bad thing. There certainly needs to be some people who are willing to sacrifice their privacy, step into the spotlight and represent the community. However, the important point is, what effects are our public figures and activists having, on the lives of everyday trans people? For example, having fights over language might bring a sense of justice to some activists, but it also alienates many people, because it often amounts to challenging non-trans people's own perception of their gender, as well as long standing cultural norms that are cherished by many. This kind of activism thus causes significant resentment that can boil over into debates over trans rights. Is the satisfaction of these activists worth trading away the civil rights that enable trans people to live quiet unremarkable lives? Because this is what I fear is happening right now. Moreover, some activist causes might even have direct harmful effects on trans lives. For example, the long-standing movement to 'demedicalize' transness, i.e. remove gender dysphoria as a medical condition, has caused anxiety for many trans people, who fear that their insurance coverage for hormones and surgery might be removed as a result. Activism that is based on philosophical ideals but can have deleterious consequences for trans people in the real world is something we really can't afford to have.

I believe what we need is to have trans public figures who will actually think of what is best for everyday trans people, in what they do, and trans activists who will actually think about the real world impacts of their activism. To achieve this, I believe we need a critical mass of people who are willing to have a realistic discussion about what our priorities should be. I personally will always be a voice for a 'trans realist' set of priorities, which focus on the needs of trans lives in the real world, and how these can be realistically secured in the here and now. But one voice is not enough. Therefore, if you have similar concerns, please don't be afraid to speak up. Please don't feel pressured to stay silent, because some people might not like what you have to say. Only by speaking up will our views eventually form a 'critical mass' in the community, where our concerns can't be ignored anymore. And only then will things have a hope of changing. It is for this hope that I keep working and speaking up, and I hope you can join me too, if you feel the same way.

Breaking the Silence on the Taboo Questions of the Trans Community | Trans Realist #1

Questioning the real world effects of visibility and 'liberation'

Welcome to the first episode of Trans Realist, a new project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

One of the most important things I want to do in this project is to ask the difficult questions about where we are going, as a community. The past few years have seen major changes for our community, and, let's face it, not all of it has been positive. Let's start with this: we have gained a lot of visibility, but what has it done for us? A decade ago, the appearance of trans issues in mainstream media was still a rare sight. Nowadays, there seems to be trans related news in the mainstream almost every week. Meanwhile, things aren't clearly getting better for trans people, in our everyday lives. In fact, some might argue that things are actually getting worse. Just in the past two months, I have heard a lot of trans people across the US and the UK panic over trans related government policies. It is getting to the point where, I believe, an urgent intervention to change the direction of the ship is needed.

Much of the narrative coming out from the trans activist establishment has focused solely on the anti-trans attitude of conservative politicians for our current plight. And I acknowledge that we don't deserve to be used as a political football. I hate the situation we are in as much as any other trans person. However, the fact is, there will always be people who are inherently hostile to us. On the other hand, I believe the future trajectory of trans rights and acceptance is ultimately in our hands: I believe it is up to us to make a choice to save ourselves from an anti-trans future. I believe our choices will play an important role in whether we can win acceptance or not. Right now, we are not doing very well in this regard, and we need to do everything in our power to improve our game, if we want to live in a future where we, and those who come after us, are generally accepted by society, and have the civil rights we need to live a comfortable life.

Which leads me to the next question: is all visibility good? Drawing on experiences from gay rights movements, particularly marriage equality, it has been concluded that visibility is important for acceptance. However, the experience of trans visibility in the past decade has painted a very different picture. When I came out in 2006, we were at least left alone by most people, unfortunately I don't think we can say the same today. The fact is, all visibility is not equal. Some forms of visibility advance acceptance, others lead to backlash and misunderstanding. For example, being visible as a constructive member of society is a good thing, but being visible in political movements considered extreme by most people isn't so good. And trans people have also been involved in a disproportionate amount of deplatforming controversies recently, which is certainly not good visibility. The marriage equality movement succeeded because it promoted the 'good' kind of visibility, but what we have had in terms of trans visibility so far is a mixed bag, which has led to confusion, frustration and even resentment from some sections of society. This clearly needs to change.

A related question is the over-focus on philosophical and epistemological views of transness. As I often like to say, I don't expect the whole world to agree with me on the philosophy and epistemology of gender and transness, because we can't even agree on these issues within the trans community itself. For example, I don't believe that gender is a social construct, but some trans people do believe in that theory. Ultimately, what trans people need from society is acceptance and reasonable accommodation, so we can live our lives without fear of discrimination, and unfair limitation on our opportunities in life. This does not have to depend on answers to philosophical questions such as 'what is gender', 'what is a man', 'what is a woman', and so on. Indeed, over the past few years, the intense debate over these questions has only served to distract from the core issue at hand: the need for the inclusion and humane treatment of trans people in society. Much of the trans activist establishment today seems to be invested in philosophies that they believe will lead to our 'liberation'. However, as I have demonstrated over the past year, these obsessions seem to have only served to imprison our strategy, and hamper us in terms of providing effective arguments for our acceptance in the trans debate. In any case, this obsession with philosophical 'liberation' is clearly an unaffordable luxury in terms of priorities, during a time when many members of our community are struggling with the basics of life. We owe it to our most disadvantaged members to be more pragmatic going forward.

This is why I am advocating for a 'trans realist' approach, as an alternative to the self-defeating kind of activism that has been far too dominant in our community in recent years. In this approach, we take a realistic, reality-based view of what can and should be done to actually improve the lives of trans people in the real world. In saying this, I don't mean that we need to abandon philosophizing about the trans experience at all. I am philosophical by nature, I love to have philosophical debates about the trans experience, and I won't stop doing that. However, there is a time and place where we must focus on the pragmatic needs of trans lives, and I hope that a 'trans realist' movement can provide that space.

I hope we can build a 'trans realist' movement, where we can come together and do what is going to be practically the best for trans lives. We don't have to agree with each other's philosophy. What we need to agree on is to put the real world needs of trans people first. In this space, we will talk about pragmatic solutions to improve trans acceptance, because this is the only way we will win the civil rights we need to live comfortably, and prevent anti-trans politicians from trampling on our hard-won rights. There will be room for making compromises with those who might have concerns about proposed reforms, because we will only be able to win broad based support by working hard to address valid concerns from various stakeholders. To achieve this end, there will be no ideological purity, no litmus tests, and no taboos in what we can discuss. There will also be a culture of civility, because we can only have constructive conversations by insisting that everyone behave reasonably and civilly towards each other. For too long, these priorities have been unfairly labelled 'respectability politics' by the activist establishment. What we want is constructiveness rather than respectability, and there is nothing wrong with wanting a more constructive approach, especially when things are clearly going in the wrong direction for us. It's time that rationality prevailed again, and a more constructive chapter of the trans rights movement is written.

How Debra Soh's The End Of Gender Exposed Anti-Trans Ideology | Trans Deeper #2

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. In this episode, I want to take a look at gender critical feminism's response to Debra Soh's recent book The End Of Gender, and what we can learn about gender critical feminism, as well as the broader trans skeptic and anti-trans 'coalition'.

Dr. Soh's book has been well received by people who can be broadly described as trans skeptic or even anti-trans. Meanwhile, most trans people and trans allies have responded to it negatively. But the reality isn't so simple. Soh has stated repeatedly that she is not anti-trans, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. I think the book itself does have a problem of being imbalanced when discussing certain trans-related issues. For example, it presents the widely debunked Blanchard typology as if it were fact, and even suggests that it is truth that has been buried. However, the problem with the Blanchard typology is that it simply does not line up with the objectively observable reality. Blanchard typology supporters have never satisfactorily addressed this criticism, and this book is no exception in this regard. Presenting objectively invalid theory as fact is, in my opinion, not excusable. However, this book might indeed have a silver lining for trans people and trans allies, judging by how the gender critical feminist movement has responded to it. And it is this aspect I want to focus on today.

Most gender critical feminist reviews seem to be very happy with the parts of the book that describe the physical differences between men and women outside the brain. They were particularly delighted about assertions regarding the immutability of the basic facts of biology. Gender critical feminism has long believed that biological reality is on their side, when it clearly isn't true. I also don't know why anti-trans people often seem to think that we trans people can't accept the basic facts of biology. I, for one, certainly acknowledge biological reality, as do many trans people I know. Indeed, many trans people, myself included, have long objected to the media's usage of terms like 'sex change', because it is inaccurate, and serves to discredit the whole trans experience as if it were rooted in fantasy removed from biological reality.

Where gender critical feminists start to have problems with the book is in the parts where it describes neurological and psychological differences between male and female brains. They really can't accept the book's argument that gender is not a social construct, and that it is rooted in biology that reflects the history of evolution and natural selection. They can't even accept simple statements of fact like women's cortisol levels are higher than men's (an example actually used in the book), without looking to explanations in radical feminist theory. They even resort to accusing Soh of ignoring feminist theory, which is not a valid argument since we are looking at scientific facts, and only scientific facts here, right? So much for respecting biological reality.

All this shows that while gender critical feminists love to say how 'sex differences matter', when it comes to the brain, they ignore and reject all evidence showing sex differences, even resorting to placing philosophical theory above scientific observations to make their case, which clearly makes them not that different from the postmodern queer theory feminists they seem to oppose. Some gender critical feminists even accused the book of discussing Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler in the same section, as if the two advocated for the same thing. But then again, are they that different? Both advocated for the view that gender is a social construct. The difference between gender critical feminism and postmodern feminism is basically the narcissism of small differences, then. Indeed, in the book, Soh actually pointed out the central contradiction of gender critical feminism: "if radical feminists believe gender is a social construct, you'd expect they'd also believe that trans women could just be socialized as women after transitioning". Thanks.

As I have said many times before, gender critical feminism is an ideology that is rooted in critical theory. The only part of biological reality gender critical feminism has use for is the fact that most women have wombs and can give birth to babies, which it uses as the 'materialist' basis in its pseudo-Marxist justification of its whole worldview. The rest of biological reality is ignored, and biological differences in neurology, psychology and behavior are outrightly rejected, and 'explained' as a superstructural oppressive social construct used by men, as a pseudo-Marxist 'sex class', to oppress women, as a pseudo-Marxist 'sex class'. This ideology is clearly incompatible with a commitment to objective science. When questioned on this point, gender critical feminists sometimes like to reply that science has been used by the patriarchy to justify their oppression. Again, typical critical theory rhetoric. Gender critical feminism is basically just as anti-science as queer theory, because they ultimately have the same kind of worldview.

By focusing on physical sex differences, gender critical feminism can deny its role in promoting the radical anti-science ideology that there is no biological basis for any of the observed behavioral differences between men and women. By effectively offering trans people as a 'sacrifice', to prove how they are so into biological reality and so different from the so-called 'woke', they think they can curry favor with scientifically-orientated people as well as conservatives. I believe this is where trans people and trans allies should burst their bubble, and expose their contradictory stance. By exposing the anti-science ideology at the heart of gender critical feminism, we can also effectively make the case for the validity of trans identity. Just like sexual orientation, gender identity is inborn, and is almost certainly rooted in the biology of the brain. Which is why, if you are kind enough to accept gay people and marriage equality because you acknowledge that gay people are 'born this way', you should have no problem accepting trans people and trans rights on the same basis either.

Finally, gender critical feminism, which was known just as 'radical feminism' until recently, has always had a problem with trans people, because we are living proof that gender is not, or at least not entirely, a social construct. This attitude has never budged, and I don't see how it can ever be reasoned into changing, given its ideological commitments. The gender critical feminist reaction to the chapter of the book dedicated to dating and relationships between men and women is particularly insightful. Here again, they reject any suggestion that behaviors might be rooted in biology and evolution, and insist that people 'learn' their gendered behaviors, which means they can be 'unlearned'. In the gender critical worldview, all gendered behavior is learned and can be unlearned. This, in my opinion, is a very problematic view, because it could lead to justifying conversion therapy for trans people. Which is why, we must argue against the gender critical worldview as a matter of urgency, before more trans people are subjected to irreversible harms in real life.

I Can't Define Woman? | Trans Deeper #1

Welcome to the new Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. In this first episode, I want to examine an increasingly common phenomenon: asking people to define the word 'woman' on the spot. Trans skeptical politicians and anti-trans activists in America and Britain have, with increasing frequency, demanded that people they perceive as pro-trans define the word 'woman' on the spot. Where they can't do that satisfactorily, it is deemed that they have an agenda to abolish the long-standing understanding of 'woman' and sex and gender more generally, as if they were into postmodern queer theory. However, is this a fair way to approach things?

Firstly, I think we should look at what answers people might give, when asked to define 'woman' on the spot, which, by the way, is a very odd and awkward thing to be asked. I guess the first option that comes to mind is to give the common dictionary definition, i.e. 'an adult human female'. But then again, this definition clarifies nothing, because nobody actually disputes the 'adult' and 'human' parts of the definition, it's the 'female' part that is supposedly disputed, which this dictionary definition does not further define. Therefore, the demand that one define 'woman' is basically a demand to define 'female'.

While this question is usually asked in the context of trans rights related controversies, we should acknowledge that, even if we leave trans people aside, it is still going to be difficult to define 'female' on the spot. Let's examine the objective facts empirically. If we look at the 99% of the population who aren't trans, there isn't going to be a definition of 'female' that will satisfactorily include every woman and exclude every man. If we go by chromosomes, women with conditions like CAIS are going to be misclassified as men. If we go by anatomy at birth, many intersex women are going to be excluded. If we go by reproductive organs, many infertile women are going to be excluded. These misclassifications and exclusions are not only absurd socially, they are also cruel psychologically, and are likely to have adverse effects on families too. In other words, imposing a simplistic definition of 'female' across the population, to justify opposition to trans rights, would also inevitably have socially absurd and inhumane consequences on many people who aren't trans. It is not only trans people who have something to fear about this approach.

Besides, the demand that one give a simplistic definition of 'female' on the spot is essentially against the spirit of science and open inquiry, and it is something that everyone concerned with free thought and free speech should be very concerned about. If you ask a biologist or medical doctor to explain sex differentiation properly, they might give you a lecture that lasts for an hour. Demanding that people, who aren't even scientists or doctors, give a definition of 'woman', in a context where they only have a few minutes to speak, basically means demanding a simplistic definition for a complicated matter, which is anti-science. Requiring people to give a particular simplistic definition of something, when the reality is clearly more complicated, is literally political correctness at its worst, because it demands that people give an answer that is 'politically correct' in public to avoid trouble, even though they know that it is not factually correct.

I acknowledge that there is a very real anxiety in some sections of the community that, with the increasing influence of queer theory, words like 'man' and 'woman' could be deconstructed to eventually mean nothing concrete at all. This is an aspect of queer theory that I have strongly disagreed with, both as a pro-science person who is committed to the objective truth, and as a trans person who believes that gender deconstruction hinders the formation and communication of stable trans identities. However, the way to stop gender deconstruction isn't to demand and enforce rigid definitions. As I previously suggested, the long-standing understandings of 'male' and 'female' are actually archetypal categories, based on ancient observations about humans and nature. Everyone knows what the archetypal 'male' and the archetypal 'female' look like, and by extension, there is no controversy at all about whether 99% of more of the population are 'male' or 'female'. In other words, we can preserve the long-standing understandings of 'male' and 'female' just by insisting on the objective existence of the archetypes, and resisting attempts to deconstruct the archetypes by postmodern philosophy. To impose rigid categories is not only unnecessary, it is counterproductive. And it can even undermine the traditional archetypes by, for example, misclassifying intersex women as men.

Queer Theory is What Has Come Between LGBT and Free Speech | Trans Sandwiched #20

When objective reality ceases to be our common ground, there is no point in debate anymore.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to explore how queer theory has essentially come between the LGBT community, particularly the trans community, and free speech.

I have often said that free speech and trans acceptance are always friends. After all, free speech increases understanding, which increases acceptance. Free speech has always been the friend of those who want to advance understanding and acceptance of minorities, and those who want social progress more generally. However, in recent years, some LGBT activists seem to not recognize this anymore. Incidents of LGBT activists attempting to 'deplatform' views they don't agree with seem to be increasingly common. Some veterans of the LGBT community have observed that there seems to be an increased emphasis on 'safety' at the expense of free expression in LGBT community lately, which goes against decades of LGBT history emphasizing the importance of being free to express who we are. What many of us can agree on is that, there is a very real shift happening here, and it's not a good one. So what is happening?

Let's start here. For those of us who believe in free speech, why do we believe in it? Basically, it all boils down to a belief that free speech, free discussion and debate leads us to the objective truth. This kind of thinking is indeed a core theme in the cannon of liberalism. The one thing most, if not all, branches of liberalism have in common is the belief that the discovery of the objective truth is better served by empiricism of some kind, rather than blind faith in revelations passed down through generations. In this view, one must be free to experiment, to trial and error, including through speech as well as action, to get closer to the objective truth. The value of allowing people to make errors, and to tolerate, and even embrace, emotionally upsetting and at times exhausting debate, lies in the hope that the exchange of ideas will ultimately lead to a better resolution of our differences. This hope works because there is only one objective reality, and even through our strong disagreements, we are still working towards understanding the same objective reality, usually in the hope of advancing some common good.

As a Moral Libertarian, my liberalism is geared towards the improvement of the morality of society over time, and I believe that free speech, as part of providing maximum moral agency to every individual to pursue what they believe is morally correct, and observing the results at the end, should be the method to get there. Other branches of liberalism might have different reasons for embracing the way of free speech, trial and error, and empiricism, including utilitarianism for John Stuart Mill and justice for the disadvantaged in the case of John Rawls, for example. In other words, we may ultimately value free speech for various reasons. However, it is implied that there must be an objective truth, an objective common ground that we share, and hence an ability to determine what is objectively good at the end of the process, for this logic to work. Those who don't believe in sharing a reality in the objective truth have much less reason to value free speech, logically speaking.

Queer theory insists that the existence of stable, meaningful notions of 'male' and 'female' is inherently oppressive to LGBT people, and LGBT identity should be defined by resisting this. This model positions LGBT lives, particularly trans lives, as the battering ram against long-standing mainstream understandings of 'male' and 'female', rather than as participants in a fair marketplace of ideas seeking to better our understanding of the objective truth. (In fact, the postmodern dogma behind queer theory would not entertain any notion of being committed to the objective truth anyway.) Queer theory makes it seem like the basic cultural structure of mainstream society is inherently oppressive to LGBT people, particularly trans people. Hence, there is no common ground to be found, and no point to debate. This logically leads to a narrative that prioritizes the need to protect LGBT 'safety' from the oppressive mainstream, over the importance of promoting understanding through free speech.

But what queer theory implies isn't true. There is no inherent opposition between being trans and stable, meaningful notions of 'male' and 'female', as long as the categories are not rigidly defined. And there is indeed plenty of common ground between trans people and mainstream society. It can be found in the commitment to objective reality, through commitment to good science and empiricism. Contrary to the ramblings of gender critical feminists and other anti-trans activists, the validity of gender dysphoria is well established, using the long-standing standards of clinical medicine. We might not know exactly what causes gender dysphoria yet, but its existence has been established repeatedly in different populations at different times. Furthermore, gender transition has been shown again and again to be effective overall in relieving gender dysphoria, and is the only solution that has been shown to be effective in relieving most cases of gender dysphoria. All this proves that trans people are not merely making a lifestyle choice, or worse, taking a political stance, in identifying as trans and undergoing gender transition. This is an argument we need to be making much more going forward. And as an argument rooted in facts and reality, it can withstand vigorous challenge in the marketplace of ideas. Given that the validity of trans lives is well established in facts and reality, there really is no reason to shy away from promoting understanding through free speech.

Hence, for the sake of advancing trans understanding and acceptance, we need to move away from the queer theory philosophy, and return to a place where we can find common ground with mainstream society, so productive speech is possible. We can do so by focusing on the facts and the actual reality behind trans lives. We have a robust case to make for our acceptance, and we need to do it before the gender critical feminists and other anti-trans activists combine with queer theory activists to bury it for good. It is our responsibility to speak up before it's too late.