The Conservative Case For Trans Acceptance: Personal Responsibility

Welcome back to my series on building the conservative case for trans acceptance. This is just a brief reminder, but an important one. Belief in personal responsibility is an important conservative value. Conservatives, as well as classical liberals, rightly reject collective responsibility and collective guilt. Which is why I reject that the antics of the most extreme trans activists should have any effect on me, or what I'm advocating for. I do not agree with most of their agenda, and I'm not responsible for it. In fact, I have repeatedly outlined my disagreements with that agenda previously, you can check out my previous articles and videos if you're interested. The point is, you should consider my proposals on their own merit, without implying that I agree with the agenda of other people I can't control. If you think 'trans people' should be treated as a collective whole, and that is it OK to blame trans people collectively for the actions of some activists, then you aren't even conservative.
 

The Conservative Case For Trans Acceptance: Compassion

Welcome back to my series on building the conservative case for trans acceptance, where I will look at how trans people and trans issues should be accommodated from the perspective of long-standing values. Today, I will talk about the value of compassion, which is actually one of the most long-standing values we have. The fact that it has stood the test of time is proof that compassion is important to society, although many people who claim to be conservative seem to forget this. Compassion is key to maintaining a peaceful, functional and stable society, and we simply cannot go without it.

From the perspective of compassion, society should generally try to accomodate people's needs as much as possible, so they can live happy and productive lives. Given that the condition of gender dysphoria is medically proven to exist, and that social and medical transition is proven to be the best way to alieviate dysphoria at least for some cases, a compassionate society should try to accommodate the basic needs of trans people, so they can live happy and functional lives. Note that you don't necessarily have to agree with trans people's views on gender identity for this to be true. The point here lies solely in being compassionate to others. You also don't have to agree with every trans activist demand. Just reasonable accommodation of trans people's needs would be enough.

Of course, this compassion is also a two way street. Trans people also need to be compassionate towards other people, and take their concerns seriously. Therefore, we can't just shut down people who reasonably raise their genuine concerns and label them as 'transphobic'. We need to engage, in good faith, with their concerns, and see how we can address them.

Honestly Examining Trans Issues from the Perspective of Free Speech and Liberty

Welcome back to my series on building the conservative case for trans acceptance, where I will look at how trans people and trans issues should be accommodated from the perspective of long-standing values.

Today, I want to examine trans issues from the perspective of liberty. Individual freedom has long been an important part of the social contract of the English-speaking West, going all the way back to the time of the Magna Carta. Therefore, any truly conservative take on any issue must seriously uphold individual freedom. The aspects of freedom most relevant to the debate over trans issues appear to be free speech, and medical freedom.

Talking about the interaction between free speech and trans issues, I guess the phenomenon of trans activists trying to shut down voices opposed to their demands would be the first thing that comes to mind for many people. As a supporter of free speech, I agree that this is totally unacceptable, whatever the reason. Allowing people to voice their genuine concerns is part of any sound process of reform, and initial proposals for change often have to be modified in some way to satisfy those having concerns, in order to build the broad consensus needed for reform to happen. This is a very legitimate and necessary process, even if it is not always a pleasant experience for all. However, I also need to remind everyone that the loudest activists don't represent all, or even most, trans people. Many of us sincerely want to participate in the aforementioned process, and don't want to circumvent it via cancel culture.

Which brings me to what I broadly call the 'trans skeptical' coalition, made up of the religious right, gender critical feminists and other people who are frustrated about trans activism one way or another. While some trans skpetics also want a free and fair debate, this clearly doesn't apply to their movement overall. The religious right is out to shape an anti-trans narrative, by painting trans people in general as unreasonable extremists, because they want to 'win' the culture wars rather than to come to a reasonable compromise. Gender critical feminism often seeks to not just defend the importance of biological sex, but rather to completely invalidate the concept of gender identity entirely, because of its own ideological obsessions. Republican and Conservative strategists and influencers also seek to inflame and polarize the trans debate, for the benefit of their own parties. When faced with these bad faith, anti-trans forces, the trans community understandably gets defensive, which makes it harder for moderates like myself to argue for embracing good faith debate within our community.

The 'trans skeptical' coalition also has its own problems with free speech. I've seen multiple instances where moderately trans skeptical journalists come up with their own proposals for compromise (which, in fact, often end up very similar to my own proposals), only for them to be slapped down by the extremists on their own side. These extremists have made it clear that they, too, are not interested in any compromise. Their behavior also signals a fundamental intolerance towards views that are different from their own, even if it is coming from their side. This behavior is actually widely accepted as normal on the trans skeptical side, and I think it puts peer pressure on the moderates to keep quiet about their own views on workable compromises. This makes it even more difficult to form a coalition of reasonable people in a middle, to truly talk about the concerns we each have, and to hammer out an acceptable compromise for all. The hardliners on the trans skeptical side only contribute to less productive dialogue, and more division and polarization, just like the most extreme trans activists. For the trans person who wants a more reasonable and constructive approach, both sides are just as unhelpful and frustrating.

Finally, I want to talk about the issue of medical freedom. It is a long-standing norm that adults, in consultation with their doctors, should reasonably be able to make decisions over their own health. I believe this is one of the most important pillars of our liberal social contract, one that we need to prioritize for protection from being eroded. Recently, a few Republican controlled states, mainly in the Southern US, have proposed, or even enacted, onerous restrictions on accessing trans health care, that apply to adults. There have also been proposals to ban medical transition up to age 25, which cannot be justified in a legal system where people are generally considered to be adults at 18, because it would create a dangerous precedent. Finally, there are also several well known cases of extremists who actually want to ban all medical transition for adults, who have been welcomed into the trans skeptical coalition. Even if their extremist position is unlikely to become policy, it still signals that trans skeptical circles are accepting of those with essentially fascist views on trans health care. In fact, trans skeptical circles are often more accepting of these extremists, who have been able to openly voice their most extreme views, than moderates who want to actively hammer out compromises. This also means that extremists would likely have more say in shaping trans skeptical policy stances, which I think is why we are starting to see unreasonable restrictions on adult transition being proposed in some places. This makes many trans people legitimately worried, which just leads to more polarization, more tribalism, and less constructive dialogue. If the trans skeptics aren't willing to police their own radical fringe, then I really don't think it is fair for them to criticize the trans community for failing to do the same, as if the problem only exists on one side.

The Conservative Case For Trans Acceptance: Tolerance

Welcome back to my series on building the conservative case for trans acceptance, where I will look at how trans people and trans issues should be accommodated from the perspective of long-standing values. Today, I will talk about the value of tolerance, a value that has been essential to upholding freedom and peace in the West for many centuries. I believe that, without tolerance, our society could break down, so it is definitely a value we need to uphold.

Some people have suggested that the issue of gender identity be treated like that of religion. While gender identity and gender dysphoria is definitely not quite like choosing to believe in a religion, I actually think there is quite a bit of merit in that proposal. Some people think that, just because I'm trans, I'm going to force you to agree with the way I see the issue of gender identity. This is just not true. As a Moral Libertarian, I support everyone's right to hold their own beliefs, and I totally accept that not everyone is going to agree with me. Tolerance means agreeing to disagree. It is the ability to agree to disagree that allows society to remain peaceful. Therefore, I think any conservative case for trans acceptance, and indeed any truly liberal case for trans acceptance, must respect the right of people to disagree.

On the other hand, tolerance is indeed a two way street. All parties must practice tolerance in order for society to remain peaceful. Returning to the religion analogy, I might not agree to believe in your religion, but I have to fully accept your right to practice it, and importantly, not attempt to make it unreasonably difficult for you to practice your religion while living your life. There is also the unspoken rule that I should not demonize, smear, or run a fear campaign against your religion. There is a good reason why it is taboo to do so, even if the law might not prohibit one from doing so. Demonizing another person's religious beliefs would break the social agreement of tolerating each other's religious beliefs, which would risk eventually escalating into a dangerous all-out religious war, as history has taught us. This is why we can disagree, but we cannot demonize in an us-vs-them manner.

I think the same can apply to disagreements about gender identity. I have certainly called for the trans community to stop demonizing those who disagree with us, including gender critical feminists and those coming from a religious perspective. The question is, will those on the opposite side agree to practice tolerance, in the same way? Because right now, they are clearly not doing so. It is okay to voice your disagreements with trans activism in a rational and civilized way. I look forward to having productive conversations where we can rationally explore our differences. However, the moral panic campaign against all things trans is clearly not in line with how we practice tolerance. It would not be socially acceptable to run a similar campaign against a religion, for example. You can't get away with behaving in such an aggressive manner towards any religion, for a good reason. Given this, shouldn't those fear-mongering about all things trans be seen as violating the value of tolerance? Just think about it.

Building the Conservative Case for Trans Acceptance

We need to return to long-standing values and norms to make our arguments

Two years ago, I first raised the need for building the conservative case for trans acceptance. Back then, I argued that 'the starting point of an intellectual conservatism should be to adapt effectively to new circumstances and demands, while insisting on preserving the good things in our basic social structure', and therefore on trans issues the conservative should 'find and support proposals for change that will help integrate trans people into society as productive members with equal opportunities, while preserving our shared values and institutions'. Today, I will expand on this argument, and illustrate the work we need to do to bring this vision to life.

Firstly, by conservative, I mean philosophical conservatism, i.e. the cannon of thinking that can be traced back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, rather than politically right-wing thinking, or what so-called conservative political parties are currently doing. Much of right-wing politics is reactionary rather than conservative, and this situation is frankly getting worse. On the other hand, moderate leaders of center-left parties sometimes adopt philosophically conservative stances too, at least on certain issues. So by conservative, I am referring to the philosophical framework, not the political party or tribe. Conservatism, as a philosophical standpoint, is generally skeptical towards radical change based on abstract ideas. It is not opposed to all change, however, and thus is not reactionary. Rather, change is only justifiable on practical need, and any proposal for change also needs to be brought into line with the long-standing traditions of a given society. Moreover, change should be carefully considered and gradual, as opposed to emotionally charged and revolutionary. A conservative case for trans acceptance would therefore aim to bring about general acceptance and accommodation of trans people in society, in a way consistent with the aforementioned principles.

There are more reasons to support a conservative case for trans acceptance. Firstly, as I have argued before, philosophical conservatism is an inherent component in a healthy and robust reformist philosophy, because otherwise, there is basically no justification for choosing reform over revolution. Thus, the conservative case for trans acceptance is also a large part of any reformist case for trans acceptance. Secondly, one of the biggest goals of true conservative philosophy is to preserve freedom, by preventing authoritarianism justified on abstract utopian goals. Therefore, the conservative case for trans acceptance also plays an important role in preventing culture warriors on both the far-left and the far-right from using trans issues as a wedge to take away freedom.

Having this framework in the first place opens up many possible areas of discussion, that are excluded from the current public discussion around trans issues, which is dominated by the culture war between radicals and reactionaries. For example, we should have an honest discussion about how certain 'trans rights' demands or models of accommodation for trans people do or do not conflict with long-standing social norms and values, and whether there is a way to resolve such conflicts if necessary. We will only get to good solutions for accommodating trans people as a society if we do this. Right now, the radicals insist that either there is never any conflict, or that any conflict must be entirely resolved in favor of the trans activists' demands, because tradition is seen as oppressive anyway. On the other hand, the reactionaries insist that any accommodation of trans identities, even down to the use of preferred pronouns on a voluntary basis, is impossible to reconcile with traditional values, resorting not to robust intellectual argument but to populist emotional appeal as their justification. A truly intellectual conservative position, based on the aforementioned philosophical framework, would reject both of these extremes, and provide a more rational middle ground to have truly fruitful conversations on.

Going forward, in this series, I will be opening up all sorts of discussions, basing my position upon the philosophical framework of the conservative case for trans acceptance. It is going to be a long and arduous process, especially in the current culture war context, but it is certainly a process we need to have. Unlike the 100% with-us-or-against-us position of both the radicals and the reactionaries, in the truly conservative framework, there is plenty of room to make distinctions and hammer out compromises. For example, we can aim to make it easier for trans people to live as their identified gender in many areas of life, while still recognizing the importance of biological sex in some contexts, and therefore justifiably make exceptions to 'trans women are women' in such contexts. We can make it easier for adult trans people to access medical treatment to relieve their gender dysphoria, by improving insurance coverage in countries where health care is mostly privately provided, and shortening waiting lists in countries with public health care systems, while also insisting on much stricter protocols when it comes to minors, because we recognize the need to be particularly cautious when it comes to allowing teenagers to make irreversible decisions. All these positions have justifications that can be found in our long-standing values and norms, values and norms that represent many generations of lived experience and wisdom, which radical activists unjustifiably deride as oppressive, while reactionaries selectively ignore in their biased posturing. Re-embracing such values and norms is what it means to be philosophically conservative, and what would provide us with a rational alternative to the extremism on both sides.

The Normie View on Trans Issues

It is the circuit breaker we desperately need

Recently, I have been making the case for embracing a 'normie' politics, i.e. a politics that centers the common sense of the average person. That common sense might not be perfect, but it is still a useful check against the extreme agenda and the associated attempts at psychological manipulation that has become too prevalent on both the left and the right. Indeed, I first called for a normie approach to the politics of trans issues two years ago. Today, I will renew that call, by taking a fresh look at the topic, and reframing the argument in a more systematic way.

The biggest problem with the discourse on trans issues right now is that narratives that defy normie common sense, and driven by ideological agendas, have dominated the debate. As I previously said, the 'what is a woman' discourse is particularly bad, with one side insisting that trans women are women, no exceptions allowed, and the other side insisting that trans women are not women, no accommodation needed, with no ground for compromise or rational discussion on either side. Meanwhile, both sides use philosophical arguments removed from practical reality to bolster their arguments all the time. This means philosophical discussions like whether gender is a social construct, whether biological sex is defined based on gametes or genes, or what the technically correct way to use pronouns is, drown out more practical discussions like how we can accommodate the needs of trans people, while respecting the concerns of other parties. The result is endless stalemate, frustration, and polarization over trans issues, with the harmful effects of this polarization spreading way beyond those who are interested in trans issues. Therefore, the current toxicity of the trans discourse doesn't just affect the trans community anymore, it affects the political landscape in general, which means it ultimately affects basically everyone. Re-embracing a normie orientation would provide a circuit breaker to all this.

At this point, we should remember that, by normie, we mean people who haven't been exposed much to the echo chambers of the left or the right, and are hence not familiar with the weird and often pointless debates happening within these echo chambers. Instead, the normie orientation is basically 'what you see is what you get'. The normie doesn't really care about whether gender is a social construct, whether biological sex is defined by genes or gametes, or things like that. The normie cares about practically getting on with life. They are not ideologically driven, and are not interested in taking sides in philosophically driven ideological debates, especially ones that are detached from everyday life. They are generally live and let live, but they also understand that we all need to compromise a bit to get along. Therefore, from a normie perspective, it doesn't matter whether we can all agree on standard definitions about sex and gender. What matters most is that we find a way to get along, by making everyone at least sort of happy with the outcome. For the normie, this is way more fruitful than 'winning' any philosophical debate. If we 'own' the other side, but end up not being able to get along with each other anymore, that would defeat the purpose of the discussion anyway.

Therefore, what the normie seeks most, in practical reality terms, is common ground and compromise solutions. Complicated philosophical arguments, that serve the agenda of one side but detract from finding common ground with others, are rightly shunned by normies, no matter if they come from the left or the right. Re-asserting a normie perspective in the trans discourse would mean making way for this view to be heard again, and somewhat sidelining the competing versions of philosophical sophistry that seek to drown out the voices of common sense and common decency. We owe it to both trans people and society itself to try to make this happen.

The 'What Is A Woman' Discourse has been Hijacked by Extremists on Both Sides

We need to return to practical reality ASAP

The problem with the 'what is a woman' debate is that both extremes are very, very ideological and extreme at the moment. Originally, the phrase 'trans women are women' was intended to encourage people to treat trans women as women in most social situations. It also points to the fact that trans women want to live their lives as women, and they are not dressing as women for performance purposes, like drag queens do, for example. It certainly wasn't meant to be an ideological statement to wield against those who disagree with you.

However, in recent years, some activists have taken the phrase 'trans women are women' to be absolute and binding in every instance, and its violation to automatically be a manifestation of transphobia, no exceptions allowed. For them, 'trans women are women' has become both ideology and dogma. They don't intend to allow any nuance into the debate. This is why, for example, such activists always rush to denounce sporting bodies' decisions to disallow trans women to compete as transphobic.

The problem with this approach is that it allows basically no acknowledgement of the concerns of other stakeholders in society, nor any possibility of compromise with them. After all, according to this worldview, any compromise solution, which would by definition be treating trans women differently sometimes, would violate their absolutist interpretation of 'trans women are women', and therefore be transphobic by definition. Even measures as sensible as requiring trans women to use separate locker rooms could be seen as transphobic. This would, of course, be seen as unreasonable by the majority of society. The result would be endless polarization, and the discrediting of the idea of trans rights altogether.

On the other hand, those on the opposite extreme are not only arguing about the aforementioned limitations of 'trans women are women'. They are actually insisting that 'trans women are not women', or even 'trans women are men', full stop, end of debate. This is the exact opposite extreme of the trans activists. While trans activists sometimes use 'trans women are women' to shut down discussion of differences, anti-trans forces are increasingly using 'trans women are not women' to deny the existence of gender identity and the validity of gender non-conformity altogether. They are basically using this debate to reinforce their own ideology that there is nothing valid about a gender identity that is at odds with biological sex.

I remember that, in the beginning, the argument was that biological sex matters, particularly in some contexts. This I can certainly agree with. However, more recently, the argument seems to have turned into 'only biological sex matters'. This is totally reactionary, and essentially take us backwards 50 years or more, back to the dark days when any gender non-conformity is seen as illegitimate, and the freedom and dignity of those who are not masculine men or feminine women are severely limited as a result. The political effects are already being seen, not just in the rolling back of trans rights in some places, but also in things like drag bans and a return of anti-gay politics. After all, if only biological sex matters, society wouldn't have to acknowledge the existence of gender non-conformity of any kind anymore, and not just in trans people either.

It is clear that neither extreme is good for individual freedom, or indeed the health of society, and we need a more middle ground approach. What we need is an approach that is rooted in practical reality, rather than ideological statements and commitments. What we also need is the flexibility to determine things on a case-by-case basis, rather than being forced to choose between the binary options of 'trans women are women' or 'trans women are not women'. While it might not be practical or reasonable to treat trans women exactly the same as natal women in every circumstance, because of biological differences or other reasons, this still does not invalidate the concept of gender identity in general, nor does it mean society should not accommodate the needs of trans people wherever it is reasonable to do so. A compassionate society should know better.

The Problem with... Abstract Trans Talk

Today, I'm going to talk about the problem with all the abstract talk over trans issues. It is a problem that is affecting both sides of the trans discourse at the moment. 

Basically, people are arguing over philosophy, rather than over real life issues. It seems that people who are more interested in academic philosophy than in finding real life solutions to real life problems have hijacked the whole debate, and are using the debate to make their point, while making people on both sides needlessly confused and polarized. 

The endless debates about 'what is a woman', whether 'gender is a social construct' and so on might be interesting for a minority of people, but they clearly have not helped us find practical solutions for real life problems. Furthermore, the needless division generated by these debates has made it harder for both sides to talk rationally and to make compromises, so that we can reach solutions that balance the needs and rights of everyone, which is what we actually need to do in reality. This is why we should abandon the abstract philosophical approach, and start looking at things from a practical point of view.