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.