How Compassion can Help End the Division Over Trans Issues

Both sides need to stop fighting and start again from a place of compassion

Compassion is the key to solving all kinds of stalemates. After all, nothing is too difficult to resolve, if you have the will. Compassion gives us both the will and the solution. Today, I'm going to talk about how compassion can help end the current stalemate and division over trans issues.

I think the biggest problem we have right now is that people on both extremes of the trans discourse aren't actually thinking about the issues from a compassionate angle. They are not thinking about it as something that impacts their fellow human beings, whose concerns deserve compassion and accommodation. Instead, both extremes are about trying to impose their ideology on society. This is why they are unwilling to consider voices and viewpoints that do not fit their pre-existing agendas. This causes an inability to compromise, or even have a civil discussion.

As I have said before, the combination of moderate conservative philosophy and compassion for disadvantaged communities can lead to a healthy, practical reformism. By embracing this combination, we can chart a middle path forward, and avoid the extremes of 'left-wing' radical deconstructionism and 'right-wing' authoritarian reactionism. Applying this to trans issues, we can see that trans radicals have erred in their ideologically driven desire to tear down the status quo. Concerns about free speech, fairness, cultural norms and parental rights are all swept aside as part of the 'transphobic' status quo. The fact that these views are rooted in long-standing values of our society and often applied to other issues too is dismissed by the radicals. They see everything in the status quo as 'oppressive', feeling well justified in their views because of the philosophical theory they have learned from thinkers, who are/were themselves out of touch with how the real world works.

And it's not as if this approach is actually compassionate towards trans people: a lot of the linguistic changes are not necessary for trans people to live fulfilling lives. The focus on abstract cultural issues distracts from effective arguments for trans acceptance. The refusal to deal with concerns from the rest of society means trans rights reforms can't gather popular support. Therefore, I would argue that such a counterproductive approach is, by definition, not very compassionate towards trans people.

A better way to approach trans issues would be to start from a place of compassion for trans people, as well as for other concerned stakeholders, and to find ways that would accommodate the needs and concerns of everyone. Firstly, what do trans people need, in order to live fulfilling lives? Reasonable accommodation measures like anti-discrimination provisions so that they have a job and have a place to live in. A guarantee of the ability to access transition health care to alleviate gender dysphoria, which should not be deliberately made difficult by culture war politicians, particularly in the case of consenting adults who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by their doctor. The freedom to express their gender identity, which would include not being seen as potentially 'sexual' just for doing so, like some recent anti-drag bills would imply. Some form of legal recognition and protection, so that culture war politicians can't just decide to take away their rights to score political points. Things like that. These things can actually be achieved under the existing political and cultural framework, and don't require radical changes to the status quo. Importantly, they don't impinge on free speech, and they don't prevent the legitimate discussion of the aforementioned social concerns.

On the other hand, trans people have to be compassionate towards others' concerns, at least when it comes from a place of genuine compassionate concern, as opposed to culture war point-scoring. I agree that we don't need to treat with any respect far-right commentators arguing that local communities can or should ban 'men wearing dresses'. These blatantly anti-trans and fascistic views should be legitimately shunned by those who are committed to classical liberal values. However, concerns about the erosion of language around motherhood, fairness in sports, and teenagers making irreversible decisions they might regret are a completely different matter. These concerns all arise from a place of compassion, to some extent. If we just brush them aside as 'transphobic', we would not be compassionate enough to them. My fellow trans people, I'm not saying that you need to agree with what these people are saying or the solutions they propose, I'm just saying that you need to treat their concerns with respect and empathy, rather than shout 'you're transphobic' at every turn.

I strongly believe in compassion being a two-way street. I hope society is compassionate enough towards the trans community to help us get the things we need, and in return, I practice compassion towards those with concerns about certain trans activist agendas too. This way, I hope we can get some common ground, and get to negotiate practical compromises that will address all of our concerns.

On Trans Issues, Everyone Needs to Stop Preaching to the Converted

We need to be brave enough to speak the truth, even if it's unpopular

One thing that troubles me about the current state of the trans discourse is that everyone seems to be preaching to the converted. It is happening in pro-trans circles, gender critical circles and right-wing trans skeptic circles alike. Everyone seems to be about pleasing their own fellow travelers, making ever more extreme and distorted arguments in an attempt to gain popularity. I guess the unhealthy structure of social media has contributed strongly to this trend. However, we should be aware of it, and resist it as much as possible, because it is hampering us from getting to real understanding of the objective truth.

I have long been trying to convince my fellow trans people that they should listen to good faith concerns coming from the other side. I believe that, if we don't deal with these concerns seriously and thoroughly, there will be no way out of the current stalemate. Anti-trans forces, often rooted in religious fundamentalism, could then try to muddy the debate by creating moral panic after moral panic about the unresolved issues, which will erode trans acceptance over time. Therefore, for the sake of trans people's welfare, we need to deal with others' concerns in good faith. Cancel culture will get us nowhere. Yet, more than five years since I started speaking up, things are not getting any better. Extreme activists still try to cancel anyone who disagrees with them, including trans people with supposedly 'transmedicalist' views. For extreme trans activists, 'transmedicalism' is their favorite excuse for silencing their fellow trans people who want to come up with productive solutions. If a solution for compromise comes from non-trans people, they tend to reflexively label it 'transphobic' even if it's not. Cancel culture functions to keep trans people in line, so they don't speak up against the activist line, even if it is losing us support. This really must change.

On the other hand, trans skeptical circles are no better than trans activist circles when it comes to listening to dissenting voices. To put it bluntly, too many people don't really take the concerns of those with gender dysphoria seriously. They are too easily dismissive of trans people's fears that their medical treatment could be restricted. Evidence that consenting adults now find it difficult to access treatment in some places are often dismissed, by those saying that right-wing policies are only about 'protecting the kids'. As I often say, if they truly want to protect the kids, they should support professionally developed guidelines like the one they have in Sweden, rather than turning the whole issue into a political football. Conspiracy theories suggesting that there is a whole profit making industry out to encourage people to medically transition, which is fundamentally unsound by the logic of common sense, further muddy the waters, and lend unjustified credence to bad policy. The politicized, tribalist culture war approach has led to unsound policy with harmful consequences on real life trans people, and the culture warriors won't even acknowledge what is happening. This attitude, in turn, leads to even more trans people getting frustrated enough to be radicalized to the hardline trans activist side.

The two sides of the trans culture war coin keep reinforcing each other in an endless circle. The only way to break this vicious cycle is for those of us in the middle to truly listen to what people on all sides are saying, in good faith. If you prioritize your own comfort or popularity above the truth, then you're part of the problem, no matter which side you're on.  We really need to resist the temptation to fit in and gain popularity within our own circles.

My Vision for Trans People and Society

Living in harmony is the ultimate goal

I want to outline my ideal vision of how trans people should be able to live in society. It's actually very simple: being trans should be a private thing. It should be between the trans individual, their doctors, their partner and their family. In the ideal world, there would be no political dimension to the trans issue at all. In fact, we were once almost there: before the so-called 'trans tipping point'. Therefore, the trick is to find our way back there, preferably the shortest way back there.

This is why I'm trying so hard to de-escalate the trans culture war, to make the issue de-politicized again. This is also what has put me at odds with the trans activist establishment, which is gearing up to fight their fight for the long term. But I don't really want to have that kind of fight at all, and I think many trans people, perhaps the silent majority, are with me here. I think we can avoid having the fight if we have some productive and rational discussions, and come up with some compromises. I think this will allow us to go back to the way things were before, and it would be better for the majority of trans people that way.

Some activists might think that they are 'brave' for taking the fight to the highest level, for their version of absolute equality or whatever. But in doing so, they are dragging every trans person into it, without their consent. I don't really think it's ethical to do so, especially since trans people already have the burden of gender dysphoria. At some point, you've got to remember that this is not just a political thing, it's a mental health thing too. If only for this reason, compromise appears to me to be a much more ethical choice.

Getting Out of the Culture War Mentality on Trans Issues

Both sides need to do it.

As my regular readers would know, what I want most out of talking about trans issues is for there to be an open, rational and productive discourse on trans issues. I want the polarization and tribalism to end. I want people to be able to come up with good solutions to the stalemate we have now. Ultimately, I want the conflicts to be resolved so we can all live in peace.

This, I believe, will require everyone to step out of the culture war mindset first. People on both sides need to do this. Everyone needs to truly hear what others are saying, no matter which side they seem to be coming from. People shouldn't automatically trust the things their side is saying, and ignore voices on the other side. As someone who has been trying to sincerely listen to both sides, I know for certain that both sides are very biased right now, so anyone who predominantly listens to only one side is certainly going to have a biased view of things. And a biased view of things can only lead to the embrace of unsound ideas and policies, that will have harmful consequences one way or another. This is why we need to listen to all sides and understand the whole picture.

The other thing people need to do is to stop being too emotional. Again, from what I see, both sides are clearly guilty of this right now. Both sides can't discuss trans issues without getting emotional, and that is not good. Emotions get in the way of being objective and rational, and make us unable to think clearly. Getting emotional can also lead to dehumanizing the other side, which is dangerous territory when in comes to debating things that will affect real people in the real world. This is why we need to keep calm, despite the best efforts of extremists on both sides trying to rile up our emotions. We need to keep in mind that vested interests with their own agendas want us to get emotional so we end up blindly supporting their agendas, and we should not let them get us crazy. Again, this applies equally to both sides.

The fact is, we can't have a truly productive debate without first getting rational and objective. This is why we need to actively aim to be rational and objective. We need to brush all the culture war noise aside, and focus on what's real.

The Trans Discourse is Missing Compassion

Too many people want their views to prevail at the expense of real lives

Over the past 3-5 years, I've been talking a lot about what has gone wrong with the trans discourse. While trans activists who won't compromise, postmodernists who keep arguing that gender is a social construct, extreme gender critical activists who are opposed to any recognition of trans people at all, and right-wing culture warriors who want to defeat trans rights to 'own the libs' are all major problems, they essentially represent variations of the same theme: people missing compassion. Specifically, people who hold other goals, i.e. the triumph of their philosophical worldview, as more important than real lives in the real world. And that is a basically immoral position.

If only people would treat real lives in the real world as worthy of compassion, rather than as pawns in an abstract philosophical battle, then the aforementioned extreme positions wouldn't even exist. Non-trans people would not want to 'eradicate transgenderism from public life', if they were only a bit more decent and compassionate. Likewise, trans people would be willing to listen to genuine, good faith concerns and criticism regarding trans activism, because they would also have more compassion for the concerned parties. The culture wars are making people mistrust each other, see each other in the most negative way, and ultimately lack compassion for each other. That is perhaps the real problem here.

Therefore, next time you look at trans controversies, or indeed any kind of controversy, perhaps it is useful to look at it from the compassion angle. It is definitely a refreshing way to see things. Perhaps the compassion angle can even help break some long-standing stalemates.

One Thing to Remember About the Trans Discourse

A lot of it is fake, or at least in bad faith

One thing I think people need to remember about the current state of the trans discourse is that it is being flooded with misrepresentations of the truth, and bad faith talking points, as a result of the politicized culture wars. This is being done by people on both sides with an agenda. This, in turn, is why we should never just accept what we read or hear when it comes to trans issues. I hope people think harder, and investigate at least a bit, about the various claims they come across.

Over the years, it has been noticed by many people that certain trans activists, especially those aligned with the postmodern left, have tried to shut down good faith concerns on various issues. Any deviation from their dogmatic point of view is treated with suspicion at best, and reflexively shut down as 'transphobic' at worst. The many trans people who are willing to listen to concerns and are willing to compromise are effectively left out of the debate, either because they are too afraid to speak up, or simply because they are not even invited to the table. This, in turn, has made some people think that trans people make unreasonable demands all the time, severely damaging our credibility.

On the other hand, culture warriors on the right have not been willing to work with moderate, good faith trans people who actually want to find a workable compromise to the various issues being raised either. I have been voicing my frustrations about this for over a year now, and the situation has only worsened, probably due to the need for the US Republican Party to score political points ahead of the 2024 elections. Everything that is pro-trans in any way is reflexively dismissed as 'woke', even though there are clearly a lot of trans people out there who aren't 'woke', who just want to be left alone to live their lives. Blatantly anti-trans figures like Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh are treated as 'anti-woke' heroes, notwithstanding the cruel and unreasonable approach they have to their fellow human beings. The most outrageous examples of trans activism are presented in right-wing media as representative of trans people, which has made their audience turn against the whole trans community over time. This is not only a distortion of reality, it is also very unfair to those trans people, like myself, who want to find a peaceful compromise to move forward.

All this means that, a lot of what is in the media about trans issues is actually such a misrepresentations of the truth that it is no better than outright lies, pushed in bad faith by people with an organized political agenda. The truth is, they don't want there to be good solutions to the conflicts between trans people and other parties. They want you to get outraged, so you support their outrageous politics, and stop being a caring and compassionate human being. Their propaganda is designed to turn decent, moderate people with reasonable concerns into hardened, inhumane extremists. Again, this applies to both sides. Don't let them succeed.

Is the Trans Backlash Really Inevitable?

I don't think so. And we can still fix it.

Recently, there has been a very vocal backlash to the LGBT community. I've been predicting that this could happen as far as five years ago, when LGBT activists chose to go for confrontation rather than consensus on almost every issue. I reasoned that an LGBT backlash at this time would be particularly bad for trans people, because there was still a lot of misunderstanding about trans issues in the mainstream. What I was mainly worried about was that, if a backlash happened, and attitudes on both sides became hardened, it would be much more difficult to get a healthy discussion going on trans issues.

Nowadays, many LGBT activists say that the backlash is an inevitable part of advancing LGBT rights. In particular, the trans visibility of the past ten years was bound to cause some backlash. Besides the fact that most trans people never asked for visibility, I think this is a lazy and unethical answer. It is lazy because there's always a better way to do things. You've just got to think harder. It is ethically unacceptable, because it affects real lives in the real world. In particular, we are talking about trans people already suffering from gender dysphoria. The current backlash is very bad for their mental health, and I think good people should at least be able to agree that it should have been avoided at all costs in hindsight.

Could the current backlash have been avoided? I think the honest answer is yes. The trans acceptance movement could have opted for a more consensus based approach. The activists could have been more willing to give people the chance to understand and be allies. They could have dealt with controversies in a more mature way. It would have required a lot of discipline, and refusal to give into emotional frustration, but it could have been done. There would still have been people who are inherently vehemently anti-trans who are not changeable, but we would only have to win over people in the middle anyway, so we could safely ignore the vehemently anti-trans crowd. Trans acceptance would have been advanced a lot quicker that way.

Rather than arguing about the past, I think the most important thing to do now is to get things back on track. It is not too late to aim for the future that we might have had. Public attitudes towards trans people are still fluid, and we can still fix things. It is therefore not too late to adopt the aforementioned more mature approach. Let's start doing it today.
 

How the Culture Wars are Poisoning the Trans Conversation

They hamper free speech and productive discussion. And both sides are responsible.

I think one thing really needs to happen before we can truly have a rational and productive discussion about trans issues: the culture wars surrounding the trans conversation must be brought to an end. There's been endless argument about who is responsible for the culture wars, but I think the mutual finger pointing needs to end. I think both sides are responsible, and we need to push back on them both.

The first reason why the culture war must end is that it is hampering free speech itself. Without free speech and a healthy and functional marketplace of ideas, there can be no fair consideration of the issues, and no development of sound consensus and good policy. From left-wing activists attempting to de-platform and marginalize voices like Dave Chappelle and JK Rowling, to right-wing activists going after Disney, Bud Light and Target, the trans culture wars have made speaking out on trans issues more and more risky every year. No matter who is doing it, and what the target is, there is an overall effect from all these actions: it makes people less willing to speak what they truly think, when it comes to trans issues. Most people would rather stay silent than suffer the social punishment both sides are very willing to inflict. This leads to the trans discourse being increasingly dominated by more and more extreme voices on both sides. These players are not interested in compromise or productive solutions, and their dominance will only make the conversation more and more toxic, driving even more reasonable people away. Something has to change. There needs to be a circuit breaker of some kind, just to restore free speech and rational debate on this topic.

Besides securing free speech itself, the quality of the conversation is also important. Right now, both sides have been emotionally worked up by the culture wars and driven into ever more extreme positions. The heavy anti-trans bias from right-wing media outlets and the overly defensive, 'everything is transphobic' attitude of certain trans activists represent the two unhelpful extremes of this emotional spiral. Together, they reinforce each other in a vicious cycle, making the discourse more and more toxic, and rational discussion less and less feasible over time.

Take the issue of medical intervention in trans-identified young people, for example. I have long supported taking a very cautious approach in the management of such patients. However, I have also long argued against a culture war approach to this issue. In several European countries, there are now expert-led, consensus-driven, evidence-based guidelines supporting a more cautious approach, which I think is the ideal way to address this issue. However, in America, the whole thing has been turned into a partisan political football. In state after state, blanket bans on medical treatment in trans minors, some which might also affect non-medical talk therapy (and hence counterproductive from a health point of view), have passed with almost unanimous support of the Republicans, inevitably against the unanimous opposition of the Democrats. In some cases (e.g. Montana), it has even led to open displays of Republican vs Democratic hostility. This dynamic has effectively turned the whole issue into a partisan topic, meaning that compromise has become very difficult. In particular, many Democrats are now reluctant to visit the issue at all, lest they be seen as supporting the Republican culture war agenda. Moreover, those pushing for bans on medical treatment in teenagers almost always have very negative attitudes towards trans people in general, and in some cases their legislation have even impacted the medical treatment of trans adults (which I think just shows how culture wars lead to bad policy). This inevitably leads to the trans community putting up an even more defensive attitude, with many now refusing to even entertain the idea that there might need to be more restrictions on younger patients with gender dysphoria. I'm frustrated with this attitude, but I don't think it's fair to blame it all on trans activism either, given how anti-trans forces have been operating lately. The whole thing has become highly dysfunctional, and I don't think we can actually have a healthy discussion on this serious topic without shutting down the culture wars first.

In conclusion, to get over this madness, and to come up with truly productive solutions, we must actively try to put an end to the culture war around trans issues. To do this effectively, we must take a stand not with the left or the right, but against the culture war mentality itself. We should also not allow either side to avoid responsibility. To the left-wing activists, we need to insist that it is not OK to label everything transphobic, shut down inconvenient viewpoints or de-platform people more generally. We need to insist that it is OK to disagree, and to have reasonable concerns about proposals for change. Also, philosophical disagreement is a normal part of life, and trans issues are no exception here. To those on the right, we need to insist that the current deliberate bias in reporting on trans issues, and the moral panic it has generated, must come to an end. Objectivity and fairness should be the first requirement in journalism, and individuals and media outlets that fail in this regard should be strongly criticized. Finally, it should be OK to debate how trans people are to be accommodated. What is not OK is the wholesale dehumanization of trans people. This means that, whatever differences we have on specific issues, we should all be able to agree that ideas like 'eradicating transgenderism from public life' are totally beyond the pale.

Let's Focus on the Practical Side of Trans Issues (Summary)

This is a summary of the article What is a Woman: the Non-Woke Trans View by TaraElla.

The 'what is a woman' question is often raised in the context of how to accommodate trans people. However, the emphasis on this point of abstract philosophical disagreement has turned what should be a practical issue into a political football. In reality, questions around the practical accommodation of trans people do not depend on agreement on this matter of abstract philosophy.

Even if you believe trans women are women (like I do, at least to some extent), you can still acknowledge that there are very real biological differences between trans women and biological women, and this needs to be taken into account when it comes to how best to accommodate trans people. And even if you don't agree that trans women are women (which I totally respect), you could still agree that trans people deserve the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness just like everyone else, and hence society should provide reasonable accommodations for trans people. Indeed, polls suggest that, even though a narrow majority of people disagree with the 'trans women are women' philosophy, a strong majority still support the principle that trans people should not face discrimination in their lives.

We should focus on the practical common ground here, i.e. the need to find good solutions to accommodate trans people while respecting the rights of other stakeholders, rather than focus on abstract philosophical disagreements, like the culture warriors on both sides want us to.

Make Trans Normal Again: the Non-Woke Trans View

Let's face it: trans people were able to live more normally 20 years ago compared with today, which means things are actually worse than 20 years ago. I often point this out to well-meaning progressives who like to say how far we've come on trans acceptance. Well, we've indeed gone far, but in the backwards way. Obviously, something needs to change.

I think people with political agenda, on both the left and the right, are responsible for this mess. Most of them aren't even trans, but they use trans people and trans issues like a political football. The postmodern left in particular likes to use trans people to attack existing social norms around sex and gender, with no clear benefit to actual trans people's lives. Their aim is to deconstruct, and ultimately 'abolish' gender, which is not what most trans people want. I'm certainly staunchly against this deconstructionist agenda myself. It has made the trans discourse weird, by introducing both language and ideas that only serve to confuse people, and ultimately bring on a backlash against trans people. The results of this backlash are now clear to see, especially in the American South, were trans people are seriously thinking about fleeing their states due to a tsunami of anti-trans laws. (Meanwhile, the postmodernists aren't even apologizing for the damage that they have done to us. Trans frustration against postmodernism is very well justified indeed.)

On the other side, we have the reactionary right, who have been particularly angered by recent developments like the legalization of gay marriage across the West. They want nothing more than to wage a culture war to reclaim their 'lost ground', to ideally force all LGBT people back into the closet if possible. They are now very open about their aim of 'eradicating' LGBT representation and ideas from public life. They also like to give a big platform to postmodern left activists, because their words and actions tend to portray us in the weirdest, most uncomfortable light. This is why, in documentary after documentary, in talk show after talk show, right wing culture warriors would only feature the most outrageous far-left activists, with reasonable trans people entirely ignored. The biased reporting from the right thus is also a major contributor to a very skewed perception of trans people in the media, where the majority of trans people are seen as politicized activists, and not as people who just want to quietly live their lives. This is extremely unfair to the silent majority of the trans community.

To get out of this mess, we need a new perspective on trans issues. One that is geared to normality. This would have to mean thinking about trans issues in a way that is consistent with the long-standing values and consensus of our society. Up until now, the postmodern left has been using trans people to challenge society's norms, and the reactionary right has happily used this to demonstrate that trans people are supposedly harmful to society.

What we need is a trans discourse that is aimed at assimilating trans people into the norms of society, so that the two are in harmony rather than in opposition. Moreover, to advance trans acceptance and get basic trans rights secured, the most important thing we need is a consensus on how trans people should be accommodated. A consensus can only be built along the lines of the values that are already accepted by the majority of a given society. This is another reason why proposals for trans integration need to be aligned with existing values and practices as much as possible.

I believe the best thing we can do for trans people is to 'make trans normal again'. We owe it to the silent majority of trans people out there to make it happen.

A Classical Liberal View on the Anti-Trans Culture War

 

This video is based on the articles The Postmodern Right Anti-Trans Movement Just Keeps Getting Worse and The Postliberal Right is Coming for Your Most Fundamental Freedoms by TaraElla.

In replying to a recent article by Christopher Rufo, I pointed out the philosophical differences between classical liberals and the culture warrior right, and why an anti-woke coalition between the two simply won't be happening.

To put it simply, the postliberal right will destroy existing safeguards against state actions that curtail people's fundamental freedoms, and in the process harm people's lives. As classical liberals, we believe in building a good order in society based on freedom, and we will not accept a bad or unjust order that is imposed by authoritarian means.

***

In saying that the postliberal right is anti-trans, I'm not talking about individuals who might have concerns about the demands of some trans activists. I have long defended the free speech of these individuals, and I have also argued that their voices should be heard and considered in good faith. In a world where the anti-trans movement has been thoroughly defeated, there will still be plenty of room for those who want to raise concerns about trans activist demands. True liberals like myself will make sure of that, as part of our defense of free speech and respectful debate. However, what I'm talking about here is the existence of a movement whose purpose is to demonize a whole community, defined by their immutable characteristics, which is by definition anti-liberal. The existence of such a movement can't be denied anymore, especially after Michael Knowles infamously called for eradicating 'transgenderism' in his CPAC speech.

***

Furthermore, this movement is postmodern, in that it is propped up by severely biased reporting on trans people and trans issues. It is postmodern because speech is in the service of power here, not in the service of finding the objective truth. The most outrageous excesses of trans activists and the most negative examples of trans individuals are highlighted, and the reasonable trans voices are ignored. There is no concern for objectivity and balance at all. It is all about building a narrative to whip up anti-trans sentiment.

***

Importantly from a liberal point of view, the anti-trans movement serves to normalize the postliberal right's approach to politics. As previously described, it normalizes the postmodern approach to news reporting, which treats speech and discourse as a means to wield power, rather than to seek the objective truth. However, this is just the beginning. By whipping up anti-trans sentiment, the anti-trans movement also seeks to turn such sentiment into illiberal policy, which would destroy fundamental pillars of the long-standing liberal consensus. If you look at history, creating moral panics has always been a favorite tactic of authoritarians, to justify taking away people's liberty down the road. Hence, the anti-trans movement needs to be seen in the bigger picture: as a tool of the postmodern-postliberal right, who are using it to destroy fundamental liberties.

***

The silver lining here is that, in fighting the anti-trans movement, both the postmodern biased reporting part, as well as the attempts to legislate to take away fundamental liberties, we can make a stand for classical liberal values, and demonstrate why we still need these values in the 21st century. In recent years, as a result of the rise of 'woke' postmodernism and its associated ideologies on the far-left, liberal values have been seen as outdated or even bad for social justice by many of the younger generation. By highlighting that the fight against the anti-trans movement is basically a fight for liberal values against post-truth authoritarianism, we can make classical liberal values like free speech and objectivity credible and popular again.

Building the Successful Compromise on Trans Issues

This is a summary of the article Building the Trans Compromise that Will Get Off the Ground by TaraElla

The Scientific Case for Trans Acceptance is Simple and Necessary

And it's time we fight to put it back on the table

One thing I have been concerned about for several years now is the de-emphasis of the medical scientific case for trans acceptance, and the damage this is doing. Certain activists have attempted to silence the case for trans acceptance based on the medical scientific understanding of gender dysphoria, doing everything from discouraging people from discussing this in the trans community, to de-platforming those suspected of being 'transmedicalist', whatever that is supposed to mean. This has led to the medical scientific case for trans acceptance not being heard much in the trans discourse. In contrast, anti-trans forces often use their limited understanding of science in their arguments. While their use of science is flawed, it often goes unchallenged because the other side is unwilling to talk in scientific terms at all. All this has ultimately led to the appearance that anti-trans ideology is scientific and objective, and that clinical treatment for gender dysphoria is no more than a lifestyle choice, which ultimately leads to policies like withdrawing Medicaid funding for such treatments. This is clearly a problem we need to address, if only for the sake of preserving access to medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.

The medical scientific case for trans acceptance is simple. In clinical medicine, conditions are often diagnosed based on repeated observation of the same pattern in different patients, at different times and in different places. The validity of gender dysphoria as a medical condition is thus established because of it being repeated observed in thousands and thousands (or perhaps millions) of patients, across at least the past 100 years, and all over the world. This is actually a reliable method of establishing the validity of a condition, because things don't present in the same way randomly.

Moreover, the establishment of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis means that doctors can attempt to treat it. The goal of treatment in medicine is to alleviate pain and improve the quality of life. Ideological considerations like whether a certain kind of treatment conforms to social expectations are not relevant here, because they would distract from putting the patient first, which is what a doctor should be doing. (It is this point that I'm worried people like Jordan Peterson might not fully understand.) Instead, a doctor simply practices medicine in an evidence-based way, and the evidence shows that medical transition is the only treatment that is effective for relieving gender dysphoria that meets the established diagnostic criteria. While there is indeed a minority of cases of transition regret, many more patients end up benefitting from the treatment, which is why it is medically justified. To withhold the treatment from the patients who would benefit from it would be unethical indeed.

Those arguing that we can't prove the validity of trans identity and gender dysphoria because we don't know enough about the biomolecular pathways (e.g. DNA, genes, proteins) that lead to gender dysphoria simply don't know how medicine works. Doctors never start out knowing the biomolecular basis of a condition, and they certainly can't wait until the biomolecular basis is known before they start treating patients. If medicine functioned in this way, then doctors would need to refuse to treat a large number of conditions, because we still don't fully understand their biomolecular basis even today. However, to do so would be unethical, because to withhold treatment from patients who would benefit from it, while the treatment is available and established to be effective, would be unethical. Furthermore, the fact that we (meaning humankind) don't know the biomolecular basis yet is the fault of our understanding of the science not being advanced enough, and not the fault of the patients needing treatment. Society certainly should not punish the patients for our own lack of knowledge! Gender dysphoria is no different from the other conditions that fall into this category here.

The activists calling for the 'de-medicalization' of trans identity aren't helping either. They have encouraged several common misconceptions, like how 'de-medicalization' is needed for the acceptance of non-binary identities, or how those opposed to 'de-medicalization' only accept trans people on the condition that they have certain surgeries. However, what these misconceptions share is the idea that it is the surgical treatment that makes trans identity 'medical'. This, in itself, is perhaps the biggest misconception. As previously discussed, the medical validity of gender dysphoria is based on repeated clinical observation and diagnosis. The establishment of gender dysphoria as a condition is established prior to any treatment, and it is not in the option to undergo treatment that medical validity is established. Therefore, we actually do not need 'de-medicalization' in order to accept non-binary people etc. Recent trans rights reform proposals that recognizes these identities are also not dependent on the idea of 'de-medicalization' at all.

I believe the calls for 'de-medicalization' actually have less to do with non-binary acceptance and more to do with postmodern philosophy, particularly Foucauldian philosophy, which forms the foundation for what is called Queer Theory. Foucault was anti-medicine and arguably anti-objectivity, and these attitudes have carried over to Queer Theory. However, this model is highly unsuitable for arguing trans acceptance and trans rights. A decent society would certainly do their best to accommodate people with special needs. The medically established validity of gender dysphoria means that trans people should qualify as having special needs needing accommodation. However, Foucauldian philosophy, Queer Theory and activism based on these ideas actively deny the medical scientific case for trans acceptance, and instead places trans rights within  a framework of critical anarchism, where it doesn't belong at all. This serves to confuse the whole argument for trans acceptance and accommodation, and gives room for reactionary right-wing culture warriors to cast doubt upon the validity of trans identity, and ultimately take away trans rights. Therefore, at least in the current moment, I believe that Foucauldian philosophy and Queer Theory are enemies of trans acceptance, and I will be fighting against these ideas very hard at least until the scientific case is heard loudly again.

Why LGBT People are Skeptical of Organized Politics | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

I'm old enough to remember how organized conservatism created a moral panic over gay marriage, to distract from the fact that the 2003 Iraq War was unjustified, costly, and simply immoral.

If we allow organized conservatism to continue to link otherwise good values with discriminatory policies, traditional values like modesty, decency, family values and so on will suffer, because they will be associated by young people with homophobia and bigotry. In other words, organized conservatism is giving traditional values a bad name, by associating them with discriminatory policy. Anyone who wants to preserve traditional values should push back against this.

Why Trans People Aren't Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes | Trans Sandwiched

We need to dissect and debunk this myth, once and for all.

Today, I want to talk about the idea that trans people are 'reinforcing gender stereotypes'. This talking point is popular among certain feminists, and it is increasingly being heard outside the feminist context too. Therefore, I think it is important that we debunk this myth.

Are trans people reinforcing gender stereotypes in reality? I think the objective evidence actually suggests the opposite. Many trans women are not feminine, and many trans men are not masculine, at least in the traditional sense. Some trans women are indeed very feminine, and it should be their right to express their personality in whatever way they want to. However, it is still clear that, overall, trans people are less likely than non-trans people to conform to gender stereotypes, or feel a need to do so.

I guess some people think that trans people transition because they feel a need to fit into gender norms. However, the aforementioned evidence suggests otherwise. Trans people transition because of gender dysphoria, and this dysphoria is mostly physical for many trans people. Even trans women who dress in a stereotypically feminine way might be doing this because it makes them less dysphoric about their body. It is a well known phenomenon that some trans women start out presenting very feminine at first, but later dress in a more casual way, after the physical changes from hormone therapy lessen their physical dysphoria over time. The reason why trans women can't just be 'feminine men' is because the dysphoria is a physical thing, not a social norms thing.

Therefore, if your goal is to put an end to the restrictive and discriminatory gender stereotypes, trans people are not the ones standing in your way. Instead, there are reactionary forces out there which you should be fighting. These forces are often anti-trans too, motivated by religious reasons that they might not highlight in public. Indeed, some gender critical feminists have aligned with such reactionary forces, just because they are anti-trans. They are actually forming an alliance with the kind of people who represent everything they hate, because they can't see that trans people are not their actual enemy. Well funded reactionary propaganda also plays a role in maintaining this misguided alliance, and I think we need to talk about this more often.

In conclusion, trans people don't 'reinforcing gender stereotypes' any more than non-trans people. Trans people transition because of gender dysphoria, which is mostly a physical thing, rather than a social norms thing. Therefore, they are not the enemy when it comes to ending gender stereotypes. We need to be able to talk about this clearly, and work against reactionary propaganda that is promoting outdated misunderstandings in order to build an anti-trans political alliance.