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.

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.

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.

Let's Talk About the Transmedicalist Scare | Trans Deeper #8

It looks like the cancel culture activists have found a perfect boogeyman to target trans people with

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not.

Today, I want to take a look at another aspect of the controversy surrounding trans actress Hunter Schafer supposedly agreeing with a controversial Instagram post. Among other things, Schafer was called a 'transmedicalist' by many who attacked her. (Schafer has since stated that she is "not a transmedicalist".) This makes the whole incident reminiscent of the 2019 cancelation of trans YouTuber ContraPoints, who was also often called a 'transmedicalist' at the time. However, what do these people mean when they call someone a 'transmedicalist'?

From what I see, when the term 'transmedicalist' is used as a pejorative, it carries connotations of bigotry against non-binary people, discrimination against trans people who don't 'pass' as their identified gender, semi-acceptance of gender critical ideology, a 'more trans than thou' attitude, and so on. On the other hand, some trans people actually identify themselves as transmedicalists. According to these people, the defining feature of transmedicalism is the belief that 'you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans'. From what I see, most transmedicalists have no problem accepting non-binary people as part of the trans community, as long as they have gender dysphoria. I have never seen a transmedicalist who discriminates against non-passing trans people, or supports gender critical feminism. The other important thing is, most of the people being accused by online mobs of being 'transmedicalists' have actually never voiced opinions that would be considered transmedicalist by the aforementioned definition. Given these observations, it must follow that the term 'transmedicalist' used as a pejorative has no clear relation to people who actually identify as transmedicalists.

So, then, 'transmedicalist', at least as used by the online cancelation mobs, is a term that has no concrete meaning in objective reality. However, those branded with it are considered traitors to the trans community, oppressors of non-binary people, and more, and worthy of cancellation. Moreover, the accusation is generally not backed up with any concrete evidence. In other words, it is nothing but a boogeyman that is used to justify the existence of cancel culture within the trans community. As with other forms of cancel culture, the actual goal is to silence dissenting opinions, create a culture of fear, and keep the discourse in line with a certain ideology.

This is why I have adopted an anti-anti-transmedicalist attitude. My point is, you don't necessarily need to agree with the people who identify as transmedicalists, although I would say that their emphasis on gender dysphoria is a very valid point. No matter if you actually agree with real transmedicalists or not, the fact that cancel culture activists are using this term as a boogeyman, to target people in the trans community for cancellation, is not OK. It is a dangerous development we need to resist. I am anti-anti-transmed because I am for free speech, and against cancel culture.

We Must Not Trivialize Gender Dysphoria | Trans Deeper #7

Turning other people's suffering into a culture war football is evil.

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to look at a worrying development: the trivialization of gender dysphoria. Specifically, in certain circles, basic compassion for those suffering from gender dysphoria is increasingly seen as 'woke', and inhumane treatment is therefore justified as non-woke and rational.

Let me give you some examples. Treatment for gender dysphoria via medical transition is described as 'experimental', despite being the only proven effective treatment out there, and decades of evidence supporting its effectiveness. From there, such treatment, even in the context of consenting adults, is painted as questionable, and possibly in violation of the 'do no harm' principle. This 'standard' is, of course, ridiculous if we apply it equally to all of medicine in general. All medical treatment carries potential harms. If this is the way 'do no harm' is to be interpreted, then clinical medicine might as well not exist, and patients left to suffer despite the existence of highly effective treatments. Of course, nobody intends for this 'standard' to apply to all of medicine. They only apply it to gender dysphoria, because they are trivializing the suffering brought on by this condition. This culture war motivated bias is both unscientific and inhumane.

Another example is the increasing normalization of gender critical views in anti-woke circles, to the extent that gender critical activists are given many opportunities to promote their views without the other side of the argument being equally presented. One thing gender critical activists often argue is that using a trans person's preferred pronouns is 'giving in' to some kind of ideology. I have argued elsewhere why this isn't the case, but as a supporter of free speech I ultimately respect your right to say whatever you want. However, the important point is, the gender dysphoria side of the story is almost never presented as a rebuttal to the gender critical argument. The argument is that, using a trans person's preferred pronouns contributes to relieving gender dysphoria, and is therefore a decent thing to do. After hearing this argument, it is still up to you to do what you believe is right. But the argument must be available for consideration in the first place. And too often, it isn't even on the table anymore in the anti-woke world.

As I have been saying for a long time, the discourse around trans people has been dominated by everything from academic philosophy to politicized culture wars, with the focus on anything but gender dysphoria. This is totally unfair to trans people, who transition because they need to relieve their gender dysphoria in the first place. The distraction from this fact leads to less appetite for compassion towards trans people as fellow humans, and more polarization over trans issues as abstract philosophical concerns, as if they weren't affecting actual human beings. The current trivialization of gender dysphoria is the logical conclusion of all this. Therefore, it's time we talked a lot more about gender dysphoria. It needs to be at the center of the trans discourse once again.

What is a Woman, Revisited | Trans Deeper #6

Culture War Politics is Anti-Science, No Matter Which Side You're On

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to take another look at the 'what is a woman' question. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of this so-called 'debate', but given that some people believe it is important enough to keep it going, there is something else I must say on this topic.

Previously, I offered my view that an 'archetypal' definition of the words 'man' and 'woman' are closest to their long-standing historical usage, and I gave an analysis to back this up. It was well received by many people, and it also generated some controversy, as expected. This time, I am going to look at this topic from a different angle: the fact that there seems to be a culture war politics driven campaign to manufacture division on this topic, and why this is actually very anti-science.

Let's consider this fact: apart from perhaps the true believers of queer theory, for the rest of us, there is in fact very good agreement on the classification of 'women' (or 'men'). Observers, regardless of cultural background, political affiliation or generation, can clearly come to a consensus on whether particular individuals fit the words 'woman' or 'man', 98% or more of the time. The overall level of agreement here, across the population, is in fact very high by the standards of biological science, where 100% agreement is generally not the norm. The level of agreement here is actually higher than for the diagnosis of many serious illnesses, for example.

As I said last time, the only truly significant disagreements regarding the classification of both sex and gender are in the 'borderline' cases, mostly individuals who are intersex (re both sex and gender classification) and trans (re gender classification), who represent about 1% of the population at most, according to various estimates. All the recent culture war panic about 'definitions' is basically referring to no more than this very small area of disagreement. Honestly, those pushing this culture war panic remind me of the people who said that legalizing gay marriage would 'radically change the definition of marriage' and lead to the downfall of family values. Years after the vast majority of Western countries legalized gay marriage, this of course has not happened. I believe there is actually a lesson to be learned there about emotional manipulation for political purposes.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that there are some real differences in opinion here, and it is something that we have to deal with. Given that what we are talking about is a matter of biological science, I believe we should defer to the scientific way, rather than the political way, to deal with our differences here. In science, having differences of opinion among the experts is part of normal life. There might be heated debates, and sometimes people might just have to agree to disagree, at least for now. After all, if scientific matters were always comfortably settled, there would be no room for improving our understanding, no room for scientific progress, and no point to science at all! Taking comfort in the certainty of one's position is the attitude of the culture warrior, not the attitude of the good scientist. (And I intend for this criticism to apply to all sides of the debate.)

Anyone who knows something about the history of science would know that things can eventually turn out in a number of ways. In some cases, groundbreaking discoveries lead to a firm consensus eventually forming. It is often the ongoing debates that lead to the discoveries that in turn lead to the new consensus. In other cases, the disagreement drags on for generations. However, the ongoing debates can still lead us to a better understanding of the topic over time. For this process to play out in a productive and objective way, the most important thing is that everyone gets fairly examine the topic and apply their independent thinking, without pressure from any side, and that we remain open minded to all possibilities. This is why we need to resist the politicization and polarization that the culture warriors are pushing us into right now.

What is Gender Identity, Really? | Trans Deeper #5

The case for returning to a more realistic understanding

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to look at the issue of gender identity. I have come across many people who tell me that they don't understand the concept of 'gender identity', and it appears to be a real barrier for understanding trans people.

What is gender identity? In the trans context, it refers to our very acute sense of being aware that we identity with a gender that is not what is expected based on our biology. It is this mismatch, often present since early childhood, that gives us the high awareness of our gender identity. Hence, I think gender identity can be seen as a function of gender dysphoria, and it is the context of gender dysphoria that gives us its meaning.

I guess the trouble is that some activists have recently insisted that everyone has a gender identity. Based on conversations I have had with non-trans people, this clearly isn't true. Unlike trans people with gender dysphoria, most non-trans people don't seem to feel like they have an innate 'gender identity'. They are simply OK with the gender that has been expected of them from childhood. To ask non-trans people to accept that everyone has a 'gender identity' actually risks making them confused about trans people and trans identity. If non-trans people are supposed to be able to understand 'gender identity' simply by looking at their own experience in theory, but they actually can't feel anything like the gender identity described by trans people in reality, they might even end up dismissing the experiences of trans people.

I believe the best way to promote mutual understanding is to encourage honesty on all sides. For trans people, our innate sense of gender identity is central to our experience of life and our understanding of our gender dysphoria. If we are to be able to honestly speak about our own experience, we must be given the space to speak honestly about our gender identity. This is why the trend in certain anti-woke circles, where trans identity is routinely dismissed as 'woke', and trans people are pressured to accept gender critical philosophy and/or invalid models of transness that circumvent the concept of innate gender identity (e.g. the Blanchard typology), is something I've become really concerned about. On the other hand, non-trans people must be able to honestly speak out about their lack of feeling an innate gender identity, and their difficulty in understanding and empathizing with the experience of gender dysphoria. This is not transphobia. Rather, it is an honest description of the differences of our experiences. This honesty will be essential for building bridges and better understanding over time.

A Needs Based Model for Trans Accomodation | Trans Deeper #4

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. 

 

Today, I want to look at the issue of how trans people can be accommodated in society, while the needs and concerns of various stakeholders are all taken into account and addressed. Right now, a healthy conversation around this is largely absent, unfortunately.

I think the biggest problem we have right now is, there are not enough people who are committed to a what I would call a needs-based model for trans accommodation. As with other social issues these days, too often, the conflicts between different stakeholders are highlighted, and people are pitted against each other. The broader culture war atmosphere means that people on both sides tend towards digging into their positions, and fearing that giving anything up to the other side would be an admission of defeat. However, this is actually not a good way to resolve problems, since it would just lead to perpetual stalemate and increased polarization. We really need some fundamental change in the discourse.

I believe the best way to get the change we need is to start talking about a 'needs based' model for trans accommodation. In this model, we need to be committed to being truly compassionate and considerate about the needs of everyone in formulating policies and solutions. The actual needs of people also need to come before philosophical or political commitments at all times. Whenever there is a conflict of needs, there has to be a discussion rooted in compassion, where everybody's needs are taken care of. And we will usually find that such conflicts are very resolvable, with some reasonable compromise, as long as everybody is willing to be considerate.

I think those of us who want a good resolution to the current culture wars over trans issues should actively push for a needs based model. We should do it at every opportunity, especially when others are seeking to inflame the conflict on either or both sides. We need to do our best to remind others a better way is possible.