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.