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.