A while back, it occurred to me that due to the sheer diversity and complexity even of LGBT-friendly gender theories, it’s functionally impossible to ever have even a plurality agreement on gender.
The only workable way forward is to promote a gender-theory agnostic libertarian formulation of rights: “None of us has to agree with each other about gender in order to simply leave each other alone”.
That’s exactly right; not even among trans people do we all agree on a single ontology of sex/gender, and thus you can immediately see the problems with premising our rights or political advocacy on that ontology!
surely almost all trans people agree that trans women are women, even if there are many different *accounts* of the truth of that claim? Compare: theorists disagree about the metaphysics of race but everyone agrees that Trump is white.
Broadly agreed, I think people should generally be able to live how they want, love who they want, dress how they want, and consume whatever substances they want.
The problem is when those things intersect with broader society. If a man wants to put on a dress why should that matter to me.
But that doesn't mean I think he should be able to play on a women's sports teach, or go into a women's locker room, prison or other women's only space.
Likewise there should be additional protections for kids to prevent them from making life altering changes to their bodies they can't understand nor consent to.
What is missing from your last argument is recognition that kid’s bodies ALL change without their consent — that’s what puberty does. Denying all kids access to blockers, even if they, their parents, and their doctors all agree that delaying puberty until they can make an informed, adult decision about whether to go through male or female puberty, is far more likely to lead to regrets than a legal regime that empowers parents and health care professionals.
" that delaying puberty until they can make an informed, adult decision about whether to go through male or female puberty" But... But, you can't make an informed, adult decision until you have gone through puberty. You HAVE to go through puberty, before you are an adult, by definition. And until that time comes, you cannot make an informed decision... indeed, it is understood that cognitive maturity (i.e. some wisdom) doesn't arrive until even later, until people are in their mid-twenties. The regrets that flow from a late transition are about the inability to pass - they are cosmetic, really. The regrets that flow from an early transition are about loss of fertility, inability to breast-feed your child, sexual dysfunction, etc. - these are functional... and central to your physical health.
"You don’t need to believe people really can change their sex to think that trans people deserve access to the primary kind of medical care that resolves the empirically documented harms of gender dysphoria." -- and also, you don't have to agree that trans medical care is a good idea to think that adults get to make their own medical decisions!
The problem with talking about adult rights is that wPATH and other trans health organizations have exaggerated the evidence base to the point of fraudulent misrepresentation. This is true for adults as well as minors.
I’ve seen clear cases of borderline PD get worse and worse over time as testosterone worsens mood lability, but the patient is convinced that they “need testosterone just like a diabetic needs insulin.” Their endocrinology NP calls the testosterone evidence based and lifesaving in their copy and pasted note. It’s hard to view this as anything but a major medical fraud.
Ironically, I first did a deep dive on gender medicine because I was frustrated by the poor evidence base of many areas of psychiatry, and had heard gender medicine doctors use the language of evidence based certainty, which is rare in psychiatry. When I read the literature myself, I didn’t just feel like I had a scholarly disagreement. I felt lied to.
Agreed. I’d also argue that medical decisions are not exactly like most other decisions adults are free to make. Even in the context of elective plastic surgery, doctors have an obligation to ensure surgery isn’t contraindicated. I don’t know how well they fulfill that obligation, but it’s there. I don’t see why gender affirming care is or should be different.
I wasn't suggesting gender affirming care as it currently exists is elective. Thus the "even in the context of." The comparison was intended to contrast gender affirming care with the area of medicine where patients have the most autonomy and doctors have the least responsibility (because elective plastic surgery doesn't promise to cure anything). And even in that case, patients do not have full autonomy and doctors have a gatekeeping responsibility. When it comes to treatments such as gender affirming care that are prescribed for a medical purpose, patients probably should have even less autonomy to make their own decisions.
if you think existing trans medical treatments are bad I absolutely support you publicly making the argument that they're bad & raising awareness of their downsides! then doctors & patients can use that to inform whether they want to do it
(which is different from trying to use state power to constrain those who disagree with you)
but there obviously visibly is a thing called trans. people make conscious rational decisions to change their bodies, and are often much happier as a result. they have been doing this to whatever extent they can for all recorded history. your premises do not match reality.
A male who mutilates his body remains male. Nobody is "trans."
Yes, people have been mutilating themselves for a while. The Ottoman Empire used to castrate male slaves so they could guard harems. They didn't "transition" bc there is no such thing.
That's reality. Cheek swabs can prove it. Bruce Jenner is male. Ellen Page is female. There's nothing anyone can do about it.
it’s like she’s demanding that we call bicycles velocipedes because that’s what they scientifically and inarguably are you can’t argue with it it’s just science
Sex is binary and immutable. Nobody is "trans" and nobody "transitions." That applies to both sexes, as I stated.
Males of course cause far more problems because they're more violent and destructive. That's why male criminals in women's prisons are a problem, and male athletes ruin women's sports. No men are afraid of females on testosterone in women's prisons or sports.
None of you people can read or understand basic arguments.
but there is a bunch of stuff people can do about it, and they are doing it, so that’s incorrect. you’re saying words don’t exist and can’t have meaning when they do and they can.
nothing has any meaning apart from what we assign it. language isn’t like radioactivity, it can’t be measured by instruments. you’re starting from a conclusion and working backwards.
That's silly. Even if you don't buy into to any of the ontology, there is clearly an identifiable class of people you can accurately and usefully identify as trans. This is like saying "there is no such thing as polyamorous people". There obviously is, whether or you think it should be regarded as an immutable sexual orientation or as a lifestyle choice, it is definitely a thing.
Males who don’t want to be male remain male. Same with females who don’t want to be female. A feeling doesn’t create a special realm of existence or identifiable characteristic for males or females. They remain what they are.
That is why there are no “trans” people. There is no way to distinguish them in any objectively provable way. Nobody “transitions,” nobody has a provable condition or disorders, like a DSD, which has nothing to do with this.
I didn’t say there is no such thing as mental illness btw. There is schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, abuse trauma, autism—those are real underlying disorders, none of which should be affirmed by going along with lies or delusion.
“Polyamory” is an idiotic comparison to make. That’s a person who has “relationships” with multiple people. That’s behavior, not an objective quality like being female or male.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality exist because sex exist. They are definable and describable. A male who sex with other males is engaging in homosexual behavior, same with females, and their sexes can be proven with objective tests.
You cannot define or describe a “trans” person or prove it with any test.
That’s because “trans” does not exist, also because sex exists. Nice try, though.
And telling these lies makes you immoral. There are male criminals in women’s prisons because of this. Have shame.
Did you not read what I wrote? Believing sex is binary and immutable does not entail not believing in the existence of trans people. That's like saying Democrats don't exist because there is no genetic test for them or like when Ahmadinejad said there are no gay people in Iran.
It is completely irrelevant what you, me, or a man in a dress BELIEVE.
This is objective material reality. This is why these men are taking estrogen, getting their genitals chopped up, and claiming they have ladybrains according to brain scans.
They didn't "transition." There is no such thing as "trans."
Those are men.
There are no "trans" people.
There are women and men--anything else is marketing and delusion.
Read that again.
This is not about a political party or philosophy. This is about males and females, an attack on the sex binary, and putting male criminals in women's prisons. Nobody enters a special realm of physical existence for stupid thoughts in their head.
Until you understand that, you'll keep repeating these stupid things.
You are not making any sense. There is a factual answer to the question about whether or not this author is trans, in the same way there is a factual answer to whether or not Pete Buttigieg is gay or whether or not somebody is a furry.
Please provide a source for „empirically documented harms of gender dysphoria“. Would you agree to a regime where adults may access GAC, as long as they bear the costs out of pocket? Like is done with cosmetic surgery?
There's a lot of evidence that people with gender dysphoria are in distress and tend to be mentally ill. There's little to no evidence that that improves after transition, especially if you look at objective measures of mental health and functioning (which many studies don't).
But anecdotally, there are a lot of people who report reductions in distress following transition. I've known some people who seem to do well. There are also people who psychologically shatter after transition. If you visit trans spaces online (which we should be careful to remember are not representative of the trans population at large), you'll see examples of both. I suspect/fear the latter group has gotten larger as gatekeeping for medical interventions has disappeared, but frankly the research is so poor that it's hard to tell. Anecdotally, severely autistic and mentally ill people often go into transition with unrealistic expectations and do not get what they hope out of it long term, even if there is a small improvement in mood early on during the "honeymoon phrase" of transition.
And it's important to note that it's possible for dysphoria to resolve without medical interventions, especially for younger females. People who claim otherwise are wrong: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11539877/
I actually do think of gender identity as a religion that I don’t share, and this helps me make peace with using preferred pronouns the way I might call a priest Father Fred.
However, after anti-discrimination laws, every other demand amounts to imposing a religion on the rest of us—and I can’t support this.
As someone who doesn’t believe in gender identity, the restroom demand is that I must accept that some men will choose to use the women’s restroom because they wish to—and, argued here, if I don’t accept it there will be invasive testing of women?
Same for locker rooms, showers, and spas where people are naked, right? Activists lead with bathrooms, but they mean every single-sex space and activity, such as women’s sports. This goes beyond tolerating different religions.
“Let people make their own medical decisions” could be said about anything, including things we all agree are barbaric and harmful. I’m still inclined to let adults get cosmetic surgery… but the problem is that a world that accommodates transition in every possible way is one that will make young people think “I can really change sex, and I’ll be treated like the opposite sex, or else people are bigots.”
It’s making a promise to young and vulnerable kids on behalf of society, and this leads to more risky medical interventions (approved by terrified parents who are told the alternative is suicide).
“We all have different beliefs” doesn’t get the movement much further than the basics you mentioned (anti-discrimination in employment and housing). Anything beyond that is like saying we’re going to make “accommodations” to Mormons or Baptists or Muslims that infringe on everyone else, cause serious medical harm, and indoctrinate everyone’s kids in public school.
"As someone who doesn't believe in gender identity, the restroom demand is that I must accept that some men will choose to use the women's restroom because they wish to- and, argued here, if I don't accept it there will be invasive testing of women?"
The thing I really want to emphasize here is that trans women mostly already use the women's restrooms because it would be very strange for someone who looks like a woman to use the men's room. My trans friend has never been questioned for using the women's room since she transitioned. But you know who has been questioned for using the ladies room? Literally all my butch friends, all of whom were absolutely born female but who have short hair and wear clothes that make them look ambiguous. If people tried to enforce a law about this, what would overwhelmingly happen is women who don't look feminine would get questioned constantly, while trans women who "pass" would be completely fine.
The locker room question is similar. Trans women who've had both top and bottom surgery would really stand out using the men's locker room, since all their exterior parts match other women. I can understand not wanting to see male genitals in the women's locker room, but we already make exceptions for this- after all, most mothers aren't comfortable taking their toddler sons into the men's room.
Really with all of these cases, I think involving the law at all is a mistake. Social pressure is enough at this point that trans women who haven't had bottom surgery are not usually willing to change their underwear in a women's locker room. Sports organizations should determine whether and under what rules trans women can fairly compete in their sports themselves without government involvement.
Yeah, I think there are harder spaces to navigate (locker rooms), but "use what bathroom makes sense for you" seems to work just fine. I know some trans folks that I guarantee would be more startling for those in the "biologically correct" bathroom versus them just using the bathroom that they feel comfortable in.
What do you think of laws forcing nude spas to allow people with male genitalia to self-ID as women, such as the one this spa is currently fighting in court?
I basically think the distinction the spa was making was fine, which was that post-op trans women are allowed but not pre-op because people who patronize a women-only nude spa are very unlikely to be okay with seeing male genitalia in that setting- they wouldn't have sought out this particular experience if they were, and the person in question is frankly a jerk for bringing the case. The main thing I would emphasize is that the spa is already allowed to practice sex discrimination by being a women-only spa. If they were a spa with women's and men's sections, I would want them to make sure they have sections where trans or non-binary people could be accommodated, perhaps by having a mixed-gender area where everyone can not care.
Here's the problem--90% of these cross-dressing males keep their male genitalia because this is a fetish and they violate women's boundaries as part of the fetish. That's what gives them the thrill.
There are no "trans" people, and there is no such thing as "nonbinary." A mutilated male remains male anyway, so chopping up penises and testicles won't make them a non-threat or a woman. They can be told no.
There are women and there are men. That is the only thing that bathrooms, prisons, sports, spas, locker rooms can be based on. Doing anything else is a lie which result in chaos, and there will be naked males harassing women in spaces like spas and bathrooms.
There is no way to do this. It cannot be done. "A jerk"? That's quite literally the foundation of this fraud--men feeling entitled because their cultish delusions should supercede reality.
That's what Mr. Pritchard is asking for--capitulation. The answer is no.
The fact that you think all trans women are male fetishists tells me you know absolutely nothing about trans women. I know a few personally, but there's also a long history here. If you watch "Paris is Burning," you can see both drag queens and trans women, and you can also see the very typical behavior and sad history of trans women: that they are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
Those are all men. Men in dresses, men in wigs, men who get surgery to mangle their genitalia, even men who pass—they remain men.
They are not more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators. That lie was tried for several years, and now everyone sees that it was propaganda to trick women into allowing these men into women’s spaces because of “safety.”
They are far more likely to commit crimes than be victims of crimes because they remain violent like men are. That’s why there are men in women’s prisons all across the nation as we speak, attacking female inmates and causing problems.
Nobody believes this bullshit anymore. It’s 2026, not 2015. It just isn’t working, and I think you know that.
It's so clear to anyone who actually knows or talks to trans people, that you have no idea what you're talking about and get your information from weird and dark corners of the internet. I've spent hundreds of hours talking to suicidal LGBTQ+ youth, many of which were trans. It's not a fetish, and it's people like you who are the ones absolutely obsessed with genitals.
The problem, as feminists have been arguing for years, is that if you allow anyone into women's bathrooms, the self-policing that women have relied on which has kept men out is now gone. Why don't men use women's spaces? Not because it's illegal, but because there is a strong social tabboo against doing so that is reproduced in these spaces when women tell men they are in the wrong room. If we get rid of that by saying "mind your own business", don't tell people to get out and let anyone into women's spaces, they become less safe. The reality is that passing and mostly passing trans women will not be affected, which maintains safety for women. Any other policy just opens women's spaces to all men.
Your point brings up why it's an overall disservice to the trans movement to insist that mere self-identification should be a good enough standard to use sex-segregated spaces. I'd much rather the trans movement go in the direction of "changing documents to align with preferred gender should be burdensome enough to deter jokers but easy enough that anyone serious can do it quickly at low cost"; something like making it so you can only change them once every 5 years, maybe. Then the social standard is to not question people who look like they're making the effort to pass who are minding their own business, but that disputes should be settled with the documents. The legal standard in businesses should be to make sure people of any gender can use their facilities if they aren't a single-sex organization. Single-sex organizations should be allowed to set their own standards for how trans-inclusive they are.
Have you ever actually met a trans person? I know more trans men than trans women, but acting like they don't exist isn't going to make people not be trans. It's a very different thing than merely being a butch woman or a femme man.
but there is a trans movement and they are indeed different, whether or not (as the op says) you accept they are their new gender. your statement does not reflect reality.
I think the school should probably have some assessments to determine whether the kid is genuinely transitioning or if they're trying to "game the system" in some way, and probably allowing them to change somewhere separated from the other students is a possible solution. That said, at least when I was in school, we didn't take showers after PE so it's not like you'd ever see more than someone's underwear in the locker room.
This really seems to be a generational difference. My parents remember having to shower after gym class. NO ONE showered after gym when I was in school. And when you played school sports, games were after school and you just waited until you got home.
Yep, same with me! My school had showers in the locker rooms that went totally unused, but my parents showered after PE in school. Not sure if it was prudishness or instructional minutes concerns that killed off the practice.
"It’s making a promise to young and vulnerable kids on behalf of society, and this leads to more risky medical interventions (approved by terrified parents who are told the alternative is suicide)."
As medical technology advances, the ability for both kids and adults to transition is only going to improve. Many people that transition at a young age "pass" so to speak extremely well because they transitioned at a young age. That's the reason *why* protecting youth transition is important to trans people! You have a window of opportunity before puberty sets in.
Fundamentally imo a liberal pluralist society has to accept some (not all) agency on behalf of parents and kids. It's not fair to parents who are fine with youth transition to say they can't let their child transition, just because you don't want your kid to do so. Just the same as my parents have a right to raise me in their religion of liberal Episcopalianism which shaped my life and my views, as other parents have the right to raise their child in evangelical fundamentalism.
> It's not fair to parents who are fine with youth transition to say they can't let their child transition, just because you don't want your kid to do so.
I think our disagreement is that I view youth gender medicine as so harmful, it should not be done ever—similar to FGM or lobotomy. The medical risks speak for themselves, but I’m also convinced that it’s a psychological harm to set a child on a path to spend his/her entire life seeking validation of something false.
I know some people believe kids can be born in the wrong body, and can somehow know they’re the opposite sex, but this belief shouldn’t lead medical doctors to cause irreversible harm to children.
Medical technology will never reach the point where it becomes trivial to attempt to alter the body to this degree. Maybe the cosmetic outcome will improve, but you can’t break human development and functions without a lot of side effects and risks.
The problem with your argument is that there is no robust evidence available to prove your personal belief that “youth gender medicine..causes irreversible harm to children.” This is your personal intuition, but it has no support scientifically.
That’s simply not true. Firstly, for an intervention to be merited, you need to establish that it solves the problem it sets out to, and does not come with a risk of harm that outweighs therapeutic benefits. There is no such finding for the use of puberty blockers and surgery in trans kids at scale. This is why most European countries have paused these interventions. Secondly, sterilization is an irreversible harm and is recognized as such in pretty much every other context. Pediatric gender medicine asks children at 10,11,12 years old to foreclose the possibility of ever becoming a parent. That is an unacceptable cost.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but it is simply not true that medical technology isn't advancing. GLP-1's, mRNA vaccines, the list goes on. What we can do with the human body is incredible compared to even just 30 years ago. The idea that an injection or pill you take could solve obesity would be a complete fantasy idea two decades ago.
I could make an argument that hey, I could cite a whole bunch of reasons why organized religion is very bad for people and particularly kids and have most of the reasons backed up with solid evidence. At the end of the day it would not be sufficient to say this means we should make practicing religion with your kids involved illegal.
I really encourage you to spend some time reading about the drawbacks of pediatric gender medicine. I had a similar outlook to you based on my underlying values of liberal pluralism, but there’s poor evidence that it helps and great risk of harm. Denying a child the ability to one day choose to reproduce, or even to have an orgasm, is abusive.
Agreed that gender-ideology is not unlike a religion, and you should be allowed to "practice" it, at least in private. That still doesn't make it acceptable to mutilate your kids. It's ironic how there's a backlash against circumcision these days - a relatively trivial (originally Jewish) cosmetic procedure - and yet it sounds like you are defending flat-out child castration as analogous to a religious right.
When you say "youth gender medicine", what exactly are you envisioning? Because your comparison to FGM or lobotomy causes me to think that you think the only youth gender medicine is surgery, which I'm sure has been done on some minor somewhere but is absolutely *not* what I understand to be normal practice in youth gender-affirming care. If I had a transgender child, I'd certainly allow them to dress the way they like and get puberty blockers, but I'd be extremely hesitant to allow them to pursue anything that could affect their fertility or sexual function until they were an adult. I think it is reasonable to ban elective surgeries for minors in general, and to place limits on the more permanent aspects of gender-affirming care. But puberty blockers and hormone treatments are *not* permanent but are the dominant part of youth gender medicine, and also targeted by many of the state bans, such that I know a family who moved to Canada because their 16-year-old could not longer get their medications. Would you ban that as well?
Thousands of gender affirming surgeries have been done on kids under 18. Here’s one article, a few years old (so the data are older). I’ve seen even bigger numbers, but this article is the first thing I grabbed quickly. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37610753/
Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are a significant medical and social intervention with permanent effects; it’s false that blockers are totally reversible with no lasting harms.
To answer your question, I would ban all medical interventions related to gender identity for kids under 18, including puberty blockers prescribed for the purpose of delaying natural and age-appropriate puberty because the child wishes to be a different sex.
Puberty blockers are not a neutral “pause” button because they delay the production hormones that play an important role in brain development in addition to having side effects like osteoporosis. I would not put my child on puberty blockers because I would be concerned about their brain health. There is not good evidence for their use outside of cases of precocious puberty.
They're not neutral, but many medications we let teenagers have are not neutral. I did both birth control and SSRIs as a teenager. In both cases, my parents, my doctor, and I decided together that the benefits were worth the costs. If I had a kid who decided very early on that they were not the gender they were assigned at birth, kept up with that belief for years, I would probably start with puberty blockers because we do generally have early puberty in my family so they'd need to start them in elementary school. If they were still set on transitioning by the end of middle school, I'd discuss options with their doctor and come to the best decision we could at that time. What I absolutely wouldn't do is force them to go through puberty for the "wrong" gender that they'd have to undo incompletely later.
Now, not every trans kid is that consistent and clear the whole time, so there are a lot of situations where I can imagine coming to different conclusions. But some of them are, and I still think the best of all the bad options is to let patients, parents, and doctors figure this out amongst themselves.
This is nothing like birth control or SSRIs, both of which have strong evidence bases and decades of data showing risk/benefits. There is no evidence that early gender interventions prevent or reduce suicidality in trans kids, and for those that do maintain gender dysphoria in adulthood, puberty blockers are associated with anorgasmia, osteoporosis, cognitive delays, sterility, and poor surgical outcomes because they do not have developed genital tissue to change. The medical groups (WPATH, etc) that are pushing this type of medicine are ideologically driven. I think this is not done from a sinister motivation (i don’t think people are “transing kids”) but i think there was a very very misguided idea of what is good for gender nonconforming kids that got out ahead of where the science was and is.
I want trans people, and kids, to be happy and healthy. They do not deserve to be experimented on in this way. I say this as a woman who was a tomboy for whom puberty was extremely upsetting. I think there is a strong chance that, had i been born ten years later, I would have picked up on this as an explanation and been irreversibly harmed by this, denied a shot at a normal sex life and a family before I was able to comprehend what that meant. Kids do not have the agency to understand the costs.
There are limits to religious tolerance, and I’m not sure public opinion will allow a religion that demands a castrated class of minors. It’s easy to imagine a church that claims that some young men are called to be eunuchs, but it would stretch American religious tolerance to its limits. And this tolerance argument will be the only argument that trans advocates can make if they are unable to build a valid scientific evidence base for gender affirming care.
I think you are stretching things. A religion that demands 10% of boys be castrated to serve as soldiers and guards for nobility is not the same as "Parents and kids should be allowed to make choices supported by their doctor".
You are appealing to the authority of medicine, which is fine if the medical authorities have good evidence behind their recommendations. The current problem is that they do not and are essentially lying about the evidence base.
...not to mention that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is part and parcel of some Gender Affirming Care. They are practically identical "socially-constructed" practices.
I'm going to guess you are being sarcastic here, with your argument translating to: because americans have (for many decades) embraced circumcision, they might as well embrace child castration. Is that your point? Though circumcision is not without risk - John Money and his patient David/Brenda Reimer come to mind - surely you understand the difference?
Do you think female genital mutilation (e.g. a clitorectomy) should be allowed on religious grounds if the parents consent? Extreme ritual scarring? What if a throwback parent wants his child to be a castrato for his church? That's a pretty extreme libertarian take on parental rights, if so.
If not, it seems reasonable to also limit the ability for parents to decide to sterilize and castrate their children, etc.
I think the religion analogy is good, and I think it gets you farther than employment & housing nondiscrimination.
Medical care: so I personally think circumcision is bad and nobody should do it, and when relevant I make the argument, but I absolutely would not want the state to ban it, and people who want to do it for religious (or other) reasons absolutely can
(a possible & valid response here is "what about FGM". I totally do bite the bullet that if an adult freely wants to get FGM done on themself they should be allowed to do that. obviously no one should forcibly have FGM done on them. I suppose I agree it should not be allowed for minors bc minors can't control their lives enough for the presupposition to be that they made this decision independently. I can see how for someone who thinks transgender medical are is harmful this could be a valid analogy! and there I guess my disagreement does have to come down to the object level that I don't think the expected value or risk level is similar. but, I think that the analogy is weaker with puberty blockers or hormones than with surgery, and the chemical stuff is where most of the battle is in practice)
Bathrooms: I'll note that most legislation on the topic is about *preventing* trans people from using the bathroom they'd naturally choose to use, and trans pushback about that is mostly about preserving the *non*-legislated status quo. I'd argue that legislation banning trans men from the men's bathroom is analogous to imposing a religious practice, where the religion is "no matter how your body looks, if you were born a woman you are definitely a woman" (which is in practice pretty common-sensically absurd when applied to thoroughly transitioned trans men).
What to teach kids: I think it seems mostly pretty good to treat this pretty much like religion in a pluralist society? parents who are bought into trans stuff will teach their kids that, parents who aren't will teach their kids the opposite, schools should facilitate environments where kids don't bully each other about which thing they believe & there's generally an environment of tolerance
> the religion is "no matter how your body looks, if you were born a woman you are definitely a woman"
But this is objectively the truth. It’s not a belief — it’s basic biology. No one can change sex. If we treat this as an opinion (a prejudiced one!) all sorts of things break.
There isn’t even a coherent definition of what it means to “be a woman” if it’s not biology. It’s either stereotypes, appearance, or a circular definition (someone who identifies as a woman).
In terms of children, this isn’t like religion where most families do their own thing without issue. Thanks to the social contagion and well-meaning educators, there is often conflict between kids and parents. I’m sure you’ve heard of the cases where a child “transitions” at school and the teachers conspire to keep it a secret from parents, or when the child confronts her parents with demands to transition, threatening suicide if they don’t go along. For the families affected by this, “let’s all respect each other” didn’t work, because the parents’ views were not respected by teachers, peers, messages in media, and so on.
"But this is objectively the truth. It’s not a belief — it’s basic biology. No one can change sex. If we treat this as an opinion (a prejudiced one!) all sorts of things break."
I disagree with this!
or like, I do kind of think that there is no good one-true-definition of "what is a woman" that works for every context. I think that's just kind of how concepts work, it's a complexity that's in the territory, not the map
A definition based on identity fails in some medical or athletic contexts. but a definition based on birth sex *also* fails in some medical contexts (and, I would argue, even in some athletic ones: I don't think anyone wants trans guys on T to compete in women's division). and it also fails in social contexts where I'd argue the "real" thing that people base their behavior on is how people look/dress/act
again I note the example of fully-medically-transitioned trans men, who according to some anti-trans legislation are supposed to use the women's bathroom even though that makes everyone uncomfortable
I basically think this is a messy conceptual field where any blanket policy is going to have absurd results some of the time and the common-sense thing to do is to approach stuff on a case-by-case basis and just kinda live and let live
Re: kids, I think the thing you say is also true of religion! kids will absolutely deconvert from their parents' religions because they encounter information that causes them to change their minds. and I think most attempts to prevent kids from doing so do are pretty harmful, not least to the parent-child relationship. I think parents should do their best to make their case to their kids through their upbringing that their way of life is good, and should not forcibly prevent their kids from finding and adopting a different way of life.
I've come around to the "no different from religion" framing myself.
In the United States, we are expected to respect the religious beliefs of other people whether we agree with them or not. You're expected not to pick fights about the scientific credibility of the bible, and if someone says their religion requires them not to eat pork you make sure the menu can accommodate.
But of course, if you want to get together with a bunch of your atheist friends and talk about how none of you believe in God, that's okay. And if you choose to raise your children in a non-religious household, that's fine too.
This is how I think of it as well. A trans person's belief that they are a man or a woman should be respected as much as any religious belief, and by the same token no one else should be forced to profess that belief. You do not disrespect anyone simply by not sharing their beliefs about gender any more then you do by not sharing their beliefs about god (but you also shouldn't be a dick to other people because of what they do or don't believe about it.)
I don't agree with Cassie on the nature of gender, but I appreciate that she's making this argument and encouraging her fellow trans people and those on the left to adopt her framing. There is still going to be a rough road to work out what are the most broadly acceptable policies on bathrooms, sports, kids etc, but I think it will be easier if we aren't spending so much energy arguing about what are essentially metaphysical beliefs.
Beliefs themselves are kind of morally inert. It’s when those beliefs eventuate in action that politics enters the picture, because the actions can generate conflict. Eg a Mormon who believes they can or should take multiple wives for cosmic orgies in the afterlife cannot do so legally. Nor can a Muslim marry their cousin in most US states, even though cousin marriage is quite common in Muslim countries.
The metaphysical beliefs are important because they ground claims about acceptable tradeoffs. Don’t let the word spook you, metaphysical and ontological here just mean “what’s actually true.” And yeah, it matters whether trans women are in fact women or whether we agree to treat them as such in certain contexts out of love, tolerance, and respect for civil rights even though we know they aren’t actually women because they make small gametes.
This is a great essay and I applaud the author but you can’t slip the need for metaphysical clarity that easily. The good news is that it’s actually not that hard. There are two sexes, defined by gamete size as they are across all organisms that reproduce sexually. We tolerate different gender expressions because that’s the right thing to do, but those expressions have limits where uncritical tolerance might end up harming others — in bathrooms, or prisons, or the boxing ring, or basketball court, or the pediatrician’s clinic.
You've done a great job here of identifying the cleavage point in American viewpoints on trans issues. Basic civil rights protections in things like housing and employment do not depend on one's belief in the gender claims of trans activists. You can usually get Americans on board with universalist rights-based arguments, that's more or less how gay marriage won.
But some of the demands of trans activists on sports participation, prisons, and (though I'd argue to a lesser extent) bathrooms do depend on agreeing that trans women are women, and because most Americans don't believe that in the strictest possible sense there's far less support there. That's exacerbated by the fact that there's no bar for transness beyond self identification which creates the possibility for abuse of protected women's spaces by men if we open those spaces up to trans women. I don't think you're likely to see a huge growth in support for those positions because they do have a zero sum quality (protect biological women or include trans women) that does not exist for civil rights protections. In any case, good piece, and I think you nailed the prevailing attitude of 'fuck you, respect me' that comes along with a lot of trans advocacy.
I think the basic error was understanding trans rights as ‘just like’ gay rights or the rights of other marginalized groups, when it’s actually about six different debates dressed up in a trench coat. Men and women occupy both biological roles and social roles. I am completely fine understanding trans women as occupying the social role of a woman, as I do; I don’t need an ontology of gender to be normal to trans people I encounter day to day, and I think that gender expression should be a protected civil right in the social sense. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
But I simply, as a feminist, cannot be brought to the understanding that a trans woman is a woman in the same way I am or that sex can literally be changed. While that’s none of my business 99.9% of the time, I therefore will have a different position on questions which force questions of biological differences between the sexes— like, well, changing rooms (I do not want to see your dick in there, trans or cis); prisons; rape crisis shelters; sports and medicine. I think the biological/social divide is the important difference here and I think the trans side of the debate will have to concede parts of it, with a certain amount of case-by-caseism going on.
I disagree that allowing trans women to use their preferred bathrooms or other women's spaces depends on the believe that they are women. There are other arguments to make: a) Trans women are a vulnerable group and safer in women's spaces b) trans women pose no threat to women c) letting people choose their prefered room is the most practical solution, as many people pass and also nobody will check other people's genitals. I think the most important, because contested argument is b. So far, at least when it comes to bathrooms, it seems to be that trans women are no threat to women anymore than other women. There might be cases in prisons, women shelters etc where this is the case (I don't know). I think the solution is to have unbiased research exploring this question, and if the outcome is that on some cases, trans women (or, what seems to be a bigger fear, men pretending to be trans women) do pose a threat, one has to look at the circumstances: what kind of rules and factors endanger women, and how to change them?
Beliefs such as "you should never question somebody's self-identification" and that any desire ever to transition should be met with affirmation is not helpful. I do believe that many people benefit from transitioning, but not everybody. Many people cite there is less than 1% regret, but if you look at the research, it doesn't seem to rest on a solid methodology. I also believe that plurality of opinions on the subject is helpful to critically observe each other's data and premises.
Yeah this is where I think we really need to leave discretion to local judges and other authorities. If a trans woman is making a good faith effort to pass, has a demonstrated history of doing so, and doesn’t pose a threat to others it just seems plainly wrong to prevent her from continuing to pass by using those spaces.
This does introduce a lot of ambiguity into adjudication, but our legal system is built to handle that kind of thing. We shouldn’t expect an answer once and for all.
I do absolutely think that the insistence that the only thing that should matter to trans identity is self-identification is very harmful to trans people's access to a lot of these spaces. I get that some people will never pass, but we should set the bar a little less generously than self-identification because it is so obviously open to the kind of abuse by men you describe.
No matter how you frame them, some trans rights arguments violate the average person’s common sense and will never be accepted by majorities. Biological men have innate physical advantages that favor them in sports, and it shows a lack of respect for women to allow them to dominate their sports.
Also kids don’t have the maturity to consent to irreversibly altering their bodies, lacking the perspective needed to assess whether gender dysphoria is a temporary feeling that will ultimately resolve itself through gayness or anti-depressants.
As you noted though, most Americans support traditional civil rights for trans people (anti-discrimination laws), which already exist. Accept this victory and neuter the anti-trans backlash by not pushing the envelope further than what society is prepared to accept and which common sense dictates against.
Well that’s sort of my argument, right? Not everyone, or not even majorities are going to agree with us on all of our premises; the work is to negotiate fair and inclusive policies premised on pluralistic tolerance instead.
I think letting go of the ontological premises would require letting go of some and maybe many and maybe even most of the policy goals pursued by activists over the past decade plus. With the important exception of anti-discrimination, as you discuss.
I think that's the correct approach and also the correct result, but convincing people to move the goalposts so radically may be difficult. Especially people whose decisions to transition were premised on the (perhaps unrealistic) idea that they would be able to fully integrate into society as the opposite gender.
i mean look at the responses to your article. you gave an inch and you inmediatly just have anti trans zealots coming into your comments and spewing harmful rhetoric. i saw one comparing children transitioning to lobotomy. i agree with your argument but at the same time, you need to argue that being trans and transitioning is not a choice. theres actually case law to back this up, but in american there is generally no civil rights granted if someone i herantly chooses to be in a group. you will not see a civil rights for republicans act, or for furries, anytime soon. if it seems like a choice, it will not have support. right now, the fight is on proving being trans is not a choice.
“generally”. also see every civil right won after the constitution. there is none based on choice. religion is an exception and was not fought for in modern america
Once divorced or a veteran, you can no longer choose to not have that divorce have happened, and you cannot choose to not be a veteran. Both of these are one choice, not a continued one. A better phrasing may be “rights are contingent on if one can chooe NOT to be a member of this class once they are a member of it.” If being trans is viewed as something once can choose to STOP being, then any rights will be met with a simple, “just stop choosing to be trans”.
"the fight is on proving being trans is not a choice"
I honestly don't think it matters. Even if I grant that it's not a choice, I don't see how you get from there to biological males must be allowed in women's only sports or spaces
If you cannot choose to be trans, then you are not choosing to be in women’s only spaces. You are trans, it is a fact about you, and you belong more in womens spaces. From there we can then discuss which spaces you’d want trans people in, and to what extent. But if someone can choose to be or not be trans, then it simply becomes “bad actors will choose to be trans to gain access to these spaces”. If we accept this is a genuine request born out of necesity, then an actual conversation can be had.
I don’t believe I made any assertations as to your beliefs about trans women or my own. It would be nice if you could address anything I actually said.
I agree with much of what you wrote, and you make a good point about respectability politics. I’m just saying that no amount of respectability politics can push past the hard limits of political gravity, like rejection of biological men in women’s sports.
"Also, kids don’t have the maturity to consent to irreversibly altering their bodies" I agree, but the logical conclusion of this statement is that puberty blockers (not cross-sex hormones, not surgery) should be available to minors who pass through appropriate psychological screening. Many of the effects of puberty are irreversible (or at best, very costly to reverse, and only reversed imperfectly). Puberty blockers are reversible. Puberty blockers may have some long-term side effects, but given the available evidence, those are minor compared to the harm of an undesired puberty.
Should it be legal for a family to request puberty blockers because the family and child have decided that the kid isn’t ready to grow up, and needs a few more “years to be a kid with mom?” Or for any other seemingly frivolous or strange reason, like wanting the child to delay puberty so it co-occurs with a younger sibling’s puberty? I suppose some hardcore libertarians would bite the bullet on this, but everyone else is making questionable assumptions about the validity of gender identity as a clinical construct. There’s actually no great evidence that gender affirming care treats gender dysphoria, or that anyone is harmed by a “wrong puberty.” Some trans people may claim to be harmed by puberty, but counter factual speculations about personal history are not generally taken seriously in psychology. Eg: “I would be happy today if my crush from high school had dated me” or “I could never accomplish my career goals because the coach ruined my self esteem when he cut me from the team.”
Puberty blockers were literally invented to delay puberty in children that were deemed unprepared for it. That was their original purpose, to treat cis people (usually girls)
And they delay puberty for longer in trans kids, past a developmentally normal age, so it's a different use case with different medical and social implications.
yes but that was a temporary thing, a girl started puberty at 9, we delay it till 11 then puberty commences as normal. That's now how they are being used though.
Then are using it to stop puberty, and then transition later. That's not comparable at all
Puberty blockers slow brain development. Even if that's reversible enough in the long term for ultimate IQ to be unaffected (which is unclear), the treatment still impacts brain function during critical years of academic and social development.
"Puberty blockers may have some long-term side effects, but given the available evidence, those are minor compared to the harm of an undesired puberty"
I think the question of puberty blockers (and youth gender medicine in general) is going to be solved in a few years when lawsuits start coming in from adults who underwent this treatment as kids and are suffering the negative consequences as adults. The downsides of tinkering with puberty, and particularly delaying the natural onset of puberty, are huge. the evidence that these treatments are helpful is shaky. Too much of U.S. youth gender medicine doesn't follow the protocols set by the dutch because it is deemed too gatekeepy. I really think there will be a rash of lawsuits in a few year by people who were rushed into a medicalized path.
There are a lot of non-controversial things that irreversibly alter the body or mind of kids. And kids don't have the maturity to consent generally - whether to big or small things. I'm not necessarily disagreeing and if anything I'd say we need to safeguard children from more things they don't decide for themselves. But at the same time, human society has functioned largely because parents make significant and irreversible decisions for their children. So framing it that way kind of does everything and nothing.
This is not an issue I am well versed on or care all that much about, but I do think the author makes a great point but maybe misses half the picture.
I think a lot of people felt like social institutions: Hollywood, video game studios, schools, athletic organizations, and governing health bodies really rushed past public opinion and medical data to push the issue into everyone's field of vision, and in some cases, like schools, prisons, and family court it seemed rather...poorly thought out.
I think some acknowledgment that was a weird time, and the future will be different would help the cause. Some sense of limiting principles.
But hey, I think the same thing about the pandemic response, so maybe that's just my desire shared by few others.
I think some version of this view is commonly held by many people—maybe a plurality or even a majority.
I’d argue it’s not quite right, but I understand where it comes from; in particular, the advocacy strategy for trans rights *was* mainly elite- and institution-focused from the mid 2000s through til ~2024.
Nearly all the wins that came for us during that ~20 year period did so because rule-making bodies, federal or state agencies, courts, or other institutions (universities, firms, etc) issued judgments in our favor. There wasn’t much in the way of legislation, or the kind of popular political struggles that lead to legislation.
That means we didn’t actually secure public buy-in or build any kind of popular coalition that was truly on board. Instead, we lobbied (and then pressured) elites, who issued new rules. This contributed to the “this trans stuff came out of nowhere” feeling that much of mainstream cis America felt, and it meant we didn’t have the kind of durable support that comes with a genuine popular coalition.
On the other hand, the elite-focused strategy was largely working! We got more healthcare access, more discrimination protections, more inclusion in public life. So I can’t entirely blame the people who chose these methods; they did make a certain kind of sense. It’s more about the downstream, second-order effects of having an advocacy movement that went decades without feeling much (if any) need to persuade the *public*
Trans folks got more healthcare access and in the process unwittingly helped usher in a president and legislators determined to gut our health care, SNAP, and other social programs. A slice of a shrinking pie. In hindsight maybe not a great outcome.
No, we got that because inflation was 9%. If inflation had topped out at 5%, Kamala could've had a trouple of dancing transgender women during her convention speech and still won.
I don't think we can blame Trump's election on increased access to transgender healthcare. To the extent that trans issues had an effect on the election, it was probably because of sports, prisons, and activist rhetoric.
I'm saying that the backlash from people having the sense that things had changed without their input ("this trans stuff came out of nowhere") could have contributed to the factors that you mentioned in affecting the close election. But I am not a student of elections and don't claim to have answers.
Annecdotally, this is an issue where I have noticeably shifted to the left over the years (even if a trans person utterly fails to pass, it is easy enough to humor them). But good god could the trans activists be annoying sometimes. Off the top of my head, I have lost count of the number of people who directly equated being referred to by the wrong pronouns with actual violent assault. A comparison which I am not inclined to take seriously
Completely agree that this is the best way forward on trans issues. Whether you believe ontologically whether transition is possible has no bearing on whether you think someone choosing to undergo medical procedures should be deprived of any rights or face discrimination, and I think Americans are pretty clear on that.
But politics is all about the edge case. Where are the edge cases here?
Not edge case: discrimination of trans adults in housing, employment, education, professional, voting rights, necessary medical care
Edge cases: anything involving minors, specifically parental involvement in anything involving transition (medical treatment to how their child is registered legally/in school), whether and how minors would access trans medicine, and second, which spaces should remain exclusively biologically female. Bathrooms are an example of something that probably would do best with the sex you present as (which itself triggers a discussion of "passing", but I think challenging bans on the basis of concerns around enforcement are excellent here) while competitive sports are somewhere that the public is obviously leaning to keep women's sports fully segregated.
Overall I wish articles like this would be much more specific about what the author genuinely thinks about these edge cases and makes the argument.
Thr counter argument here is that equal protection under the law is based on more than just written words. It requires individuals in society to follow a set of norms, which arises from a shared belief in human dignity. As evidenced by some of the comments to this article, we're so far from this on trans rights that it will hinder any attempt to pass basic civil rights protection. If anything we're seeing backpedaling on the idea of broad based civil rights, with laws crafted to specifically target one group of people.
It’s definitely difficult and concerning! But I think part of why we’re struggling is we haven’t been making these kinds of appeals enough, leaving the field effectively ceded to a significant degree. We gotta get out there and make these classic civil rights arguments, because the arguments we’ve been making clearly haven’t been working, and there’s some evidence we can make up ground with a more pluralistic approach!
" It requires individuals in society to follow a set of norms, which arises from a shared belief in human dignity"
I agree there's some of that there. But I think there's also a lot of traditional "tolerance". Note I said tolerance not acceptance.
Tolerance means I don't like what you are doing, but it's a free country so you get to do what you want. If you accept something or think it's good, that's not tolerance.
During the early LGBT days there was a big focus on tolerance, just let me live my life you don't need to approve. But then that changed and there was a big push that you must not just tolerate but celebrate these alternative lifestyles. So of course you got a bunch of push back as the left tried to force a big cultural change
The general hostility to the idea of respectability politics is especially confusing when the history of universal rights movements regularly saw those movements deploy some kind of respectability politics, usually to great effect. As you note, the gay rights movement of 2000-2015 pushed for marriage partly to center the most "normal" version of gay culture, and it won. The Civil Rights movement used non-violent demonstrations to visibly prove to anyone with a TV that Black people were so non-threatening that they wouldn't even fight back against someone repeatedly punching them as a powerful demonstration that Jim Crow laws excluded people for no reason, and it won. These movements did not wholly abandon their pride, but they did make many tactical decisions about how they presented themselves to increase public buy-in that greatly solidified their victories and mainstreamed their core positions.
After 2016, I was confused to see this strategy not only abandoned, but spoken of as if it had never worked when we had seen its powerful results scarcely a year ago. Since then much of the left has adopted the mystifying belief that the best way to win rights in a democracy is to insult and threaten the majority group as often as possible, as if one can intimidate a voting block into allyship. Having to make compromises for rights that should already be inherent is unfair, but a minority rights movement must fight and win on terrain fortified against it. I hope we remember this soon and return to winning lasting victories.
I mean, I think the reality is there were just as many people in 1965 among black Americans who opposed respectability politics (might've heard of this guy called Malcolm X) and ACT UP did plenty of things Andrew Sullivan didn't like - it's just the elites were the face of the movement, regardless of what actual people thought.
Like, if we had Twitter in 1965, I'm sure there would've been popular black radicals saying things online that a lot of other black people shared that caused backlash.
Sure Malcom X had plenty of followers, but he didn't lead the March on Washington or most of the famous anti-segregation protests that won the national political battle. I think it's clear which of the two was more effective. It's true that the organized Civil Rights movement used carefully planned tactics that did not always feel satisfying to radicals, that's why they were so successful.
That said, it is important to acknowledge that while MLK's protests were calibrated for impact on an electorate mostly composed of white people, those protests still centered around the deliberate violation of laws. An effective left-wing movement will need to offend people at times because you can't make the case that society is structured wrong without telling a lot of people that they've been doing things wrong for most of their life. While I'm as much of a habitual leftist-lecturer as the average reader, the current brand offlailing at Trump's excesses displayed by the current party leadership is not a continuation of past successes either. I just want us to offend with substance rather than style, and to return to the cycle of steady advancements in liberalism that I used to see.
This essay still seems to say, if it was politically viable to browbeat people into outwardly professing the preferred epistemic beliefs about gender, that would be preferred over a regime of mutual tolerance.
It’s going to be hard to have a center left coalition with those beliefs.
It’s like if a Catholic in the West said, “yes obviously it would be preferable to establish a state which recognized papal supremacy, but I accept it’s not politically viable right now, so though it pains me greatly to tolerate these heretics, I will for now.”
I think the “for now” bit is the really important one. So long as that is the ideological line, it’s going to be hard to get center-left buy in.
For several months now, I’ve watched you gleefully mock liberals notions around economic rights and material prosperity on X.
I find it incredibly cynical to watch you turn around and then try to use the same fundamental ideas you’ve been dunking on to advance this argument. And notwithstanding that it is largely correct in my view though I reach slightly different policy conclusions in some cases, you strike me as an unsympathetic and bad faith avatar to be advancing this world view when you’ve been so casual and wanton in your denigration of economic freedoms.
Not just economic freedoms, she is pro CCP against Taiwan and Tibet. She's a tankie in sheeps clothing, and its genuinely confusing to me why a Liberal magazine is publishing her
As Jerusalem wrote in her defense of staying on Twitter, "What I take issue with is a politics of hygiene, of cleanliness, a politics where you are judged not by the ultimate impact of your actions but by your ability to demonstrate your total and complete separation from that which you deem evil." The author's words in this piece appear compatible with liberalism and therefore are suitable for publication in The Argument.
Supposing your characterization of her views is true (I would not know and can't be bothered to check), I agree it's a shame she has illiberal opinions on other topics, but what is the ultimate impact of publishing her on this topic? A few dozen or a hundred more Twitter followers?
This doesn't discredit her piece at all, but it's maybe interesting for others: she is the cocaine/banana twitter person of the week from a few years ago.
It doesn’t. I basically agree with Cassie’s argument.
My point is that it’s bad politics for her to mock liberalism in an economic context, but then appeal to it in a freedom of expression / individualism context.
For an essay replete with thoughts about political strategy and coalition building, Cassie has not at all thought through how her cynicism will play with folks who really think liberalism has to be taken seriously in all contexts, not just cafeteria style. Maybe it doesn’t matter and that group of people is quite small.
But I think it’s still a form of “respect me!” politics for her to say “liberals over here you’re a bunch of morons, but over here will you help me make a liberal argument please?”
I think to be honest there became a set of contradictory beliefs, mostly because trans people are not a monolith, and that made it a challenge to be a good ally (but of course if you mentioned that, you'd get some sneering "do the work" or "it's not my job to educate you."). If gender is a social construct, which I can largely get behind, what does it even mean for me to agree with "trans women are women"? There are very few social settings where if someone is a woman or a man changes how I'd behave to them -- certainly those cannot be the point of the utterance. Trans women also have very different lived experience than cis women -- they're well-represented in computer science, for instance, but if our goal was to increase the representation of women (in cs), it seems to miss the point because trans women were basically never female-presenting until after perhaps critical stages.
Anyway, all this to say that I think focusing on kindness, tolerance, and fairness is probably a much easier path than trying to get everyone to understand a bunch of sociology.
A while back, it occurred to me that due to the sheer diversity and complexity even of LGBT-friendly gender theories, it’s functionally impossible to ever have even a plurality agreement on gender.
The only workable way forward is to promote a gender-theory agnostic libertarian formulation of rights: “None of us has to agree with each other about gender in order to simply leave each other alone”.
That’s exactly right; not even among trans people do we all agree on a single ontology of sex/gender, and thus you can immediately see the problems with premising our rights or political advocacy on that ontology!
Only through set theory will we achieve civil rights for all!
surely almost all trans people agree that trans women are women, even if there are many different *accounts* of the truth of that claim? Compare: theorists disagree about the metaphysics of race but everyone agrees that Trump is white.
Broadly agreed, I think people should generally be able to live how they want, love who they want, dress how they want, and consume whatever substances they want.
The problem is when those things intersect with broader society. If a man wants to put on a dress why should that matter to me.
But that doesn't mean I think he should be able to play on a women's sports teach, or go into a women's locker room, prison or other women's only space.
Likewise there should be additional protections for kids to prevent them from making life altering changes to their bodies they can't understand nor consent to.
What is missing from your last argument is recognition that kid’s bodies ALL change without their consent — that’s what puberty does. Denying all kids access to blockers, even if they, their parents, and their doctors all agree that delaying puberty until they can make an informed, adult decision about whether to go through male or female puberty, is far more likely to lead to regrets than a legal regime that empowers parents and health care professionals.
" that delaying puberty until they can make an informed, adult decision about whether to go through male or female puberty" But... But, you can't make an informed, adult decision until you have gone through puberty. You HAVE to go through puberty, before you are an adult, by definition. And until that time comes, you cannot make an informed decision... indeed, it is understood that cognitive maturity (i.e. some wisdom) doesn't arrive until even later, until people are in their mid-twenties. The regrets that flow from a late transition are about the inability to pass - they are cosmetic, really. The regrets that flow from an early transition are about loss of fertility, inability to breast-feed your child, sexual dysfunction, etc. - these are functional... and central to your physical health.
"You don’t need to believe people really can change their sex to think that trans people deserve access to the primary kind of medical care that resolves the empirically documented harms of gender dysphoria." -- and also, you don't have to agree that trans medical care is a good idea to think that adults get to make their own medical decisions!
The problem with talking about adult rights is that wPATH and other trans health organizations have exaggerated the evidence base to the point of fraudulent misrepresentation. This is true for adults as well as minors.
I’ve seen clear cases of borderline PD get worse and worse over time as testosterone worsens mood lability, but the patient is convinced that they “need testosterone just like a diabetic needs insulin.” Their endocrinology NP calls the testosterone evidence based and lifesaving in their copy and pasted note. It’s hard to view this as anything but a major medical fraud.
Ironically, I first did a deep dive on gender medicine because I was frustrated by the poor evidence base of many areas of psychiatry, and had heard gender medicine doctors use the language of evidence based certainty, which is rare in psychiatry. When I read the literature myself, I didn’t just feel like I had a scholarly disagreement. I felt lied to.
Agreed. I’d also argue that medical decisions are not exactly like most other decisions adults are free to make. Even in the context of elective plastic surgery, doctors have an obligation to ensure surgery isn’t contraindicated. I don’t know how well they fulfill that obligation, but it’s there. I don’t see why gender affirming care is or should be different.
i think the comparison to elective plastic surgery is not a great one here. gender affirming care should not be framed as elective. its simply not.
How so?
It seems like the very definition of elective
You don't have to do it
you dont have to get a brain tumor removed. is that elective?
You honestly don't see the difference?
In one case you have a body that's functioning like normal. In another one, you have a body functioning abnormally in a diseased state
FWIW, there are multiple types of brain tumors for which surgery is not recommended.
I wasn't suggesting gender affirming care as it currently exists is elective. Thus the "even in the context of." The comparison was intended to contrast gender affirming care with the area of medicine where patients have the most autonomy and doctors have the least responsibility (because elective plastic surgery doesn't promise to cure anything). And even in that case, patients do not have full autonomy and doctors have a gatekeeping responsibility. When it comes to treatments such as gender affirming care that are prescribed for a medical purpose, patients probably should have even less autonomy to make their own decisions.
if you think existing trans medical treatments are bad I absolutely support you publicly making the argument that they're bad & raising awareness of their downsides! then doctors & patients can use that to inform whether they want to do it
(which is different from trying to use state power to constrain those who disagree with you)
There's no such thing as "trans."
This is cultish indoctrination and mutilation.
Nobody "transitions," nobody is "trans," and pretending a lie is real leads to harm and chaos.
There are women and there are men--anything else is marketing.
but there obviously visibly is a thing called trans. people make conscious rational decisions to change their bodies, and are often much happier as a result. they have been doing this to whatever extent they can for all recorded history. your premises do not match reality.
Wrong.
A male who mutilates his body remains male. Nobody is "trans."
Yes, people have been mutilating themselves for a while. The Ottoman Empire used to castrate male slaves so they could guard harems. They didn't "transition" bc there is no such thing.
That's reality. Cheek swabs can prove it. Bruce Jenner is male. Ellen Page is female. There's nothing anyone can do about it.
To you the definition of “trans” is “a man who mutilates his body.” It’s still a thing you can be.
(Don’t forget that some women also alter their bodies and take hormones.)
it’s like she’s demanding that we call bicycles velocipedes because that’s what they scientifically and inarguably are you can’t argue with it it’s just science
I’m talking about mammals, which are the products of millions of years of evolution.
If you have other definitions for “man” and “woman” which are logical and provable, go ahead and provide them.
I cited Ellen Page--she's still female.
Sex is binary and immutable. Nobody is "trans" and nobody "transitions." That applies to both sexes, as I stated.
Males of course cause far more problems because they're more violent and destructive. That's why male criminals in women's prisons are a problem, and male athletes ruin women's sports. No men are afraid of females on testosterone in women's prisons or sports.
None of you people can read or understand basic arguments.
but there is a bunch of stuff people can do about it, and they are doing it, so that’s incorrect. you’re saying words don’t exist and can’t have meaning when they do and they can.
Wrong.
There’s nothing anyone can do to go from a man to become a woman.
It’s mutilation and a cult.
“Trans” has no meaning when applied to humans, and neither does “gender.”
That’s why no one can explain any of it logically.
nothing has any meaning apart from what we assign it. language isn’t like radioactivity, it can’t be measured by instruments. you’re starting from a conclusion and working backwards.
That's silly. Even if you don't buy into to any of the ontology, there is clearly an identifiable class of people you can accurately and usefully identify as trans. This is like saying "there is no such thing as polyamorous people". There obviously is, whether or you think it should be regarded as an immutable sexual orientation or as a lifestyle choice, it is definitely a thing.
Wrong.
It’s not a thing.
Because sex is binary and immutable.
Males who don’t want to be male remain male. Same with females who don’t want to be female. A feeling doesn’t create a special realm of existence or identifiable characteristic for males or females. They remain what they are.
That is why there are no “trans” people. There is no way to distinguish them in any objectively provable way. Nobody “transitions,” nobody has a provable condition or disorders, like a DSD, which has nothing to do with this.
I didn’t say there is no such thing as mental illness btw. There is schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, abuse trauma, autism—those are real underlying disorders, none of which should be affirmed by going along with lies or delusion.
“Polyamory” is an idiotic comparison to make. That’s a person who has “relationships” with multiple people. That’s behavior, not an objective quality like being female or male.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality exist because sex exist. They are definable and describable. A male who sex with other males is engaging in homosexual behavior, same with females, and their sexes can be proven with objective tests.
You cannot define or describe a “trans” person or prove it with any test.
That’s because “trans” does not exist, also because sex exists. Nice try, though.
And telling these lies makes you immoral. There are male criminals in women’s prisons because of this. Have shame.
Did you not read what I wrote? Believing sex is binary and immutable does not entail not believing in the existence of trans people. That's like saying Democrats don't exist because there is no genetic test for them or like when Ahmadinejad said there are no gay people in Iran.
Did you not read what I wrote?
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEF.
It is completely irrelevant what you, me, or a man in a dress BELIEVE.
This is objective material reality. This is why these men are taking estrogen, getting their genitals chopped up, and claiming they have ladybrains according to brain scans.
They didn't "transition." There is no such thing as "trans."
Those are men.
There are no "trans" people.
There are women and men--anything else is marketing and delusion.
Read that again.
This is not about a political party or philosophy. This is about males and females, an attack on the sex binary, and putting male criminals in women's prisons. Nobody enters a special realm of physical existence for stupid thoughts in their head.
Until you understand that, you'll keep repeating these stupid things.
You are not making any sense. There is a factual answer to the question about whether or not this author is trans, in the same way there is a factual answer to whether or not Pete Buttigieg is gay or whether or not somebody is a furry.
Please provide a source for „empirically documented harms of gender dysphoria“. Would you agree to a regime where adults may access GAC, as long as they bear the costs out of pocket? Like is done with cosmetic surgery?
There's a lot of evidence that people with gender dysphoria are in distress and tend to be mentally ill. There's little to no evidence that that improves after transition, especially if you look at objective measures of mental health and functioning (which many studies don't).
But anecdotally, there are a lot of people who report reductions in distress following transition. I've known some people who seem to do well. There are also people who psychologically shatter after transition. If you visit trans spaces online (which we should be careful to remember are not representative of the trans population at large), you'll see examples of both. I suspect/fear the latter group has gotten larger as gatekeeping for medical interventions has disappeared, but frankly the research is so poor that it's hard to tell. Anecdotally, severely autistic and mentally ill people often go into transition with unrealistic expectations and do not get what they hope out of it long term, even if there is a small improvement in mood early on during the "honeymoon phrase" of transition.
And it's important to note that it's possible for dysphoria to resolve without medical interventions, especially for younger females. People who claim otherwise are wrong: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11539877/
I actually do think of gender identity as a religion that I don’t share, and this helps me make peace with using preferred pronouns the way I might call a priest Father Fred.
However, after anti-discrimination laws, every other demand amounts to imposing a religion on the rest of us—and I can’t support this.
As someone who doesn’t believe in gender identity, the restroom demand is that I must accept that some men will choose to use the women’s restroom because they wish to—and, argued here, if I don’t accept it there will be invasive testing of women?
Same for locker rooms, showers, and spas where people are naked, right? Activists lead with bathrooms, but they mean every single-sex space and activity, such as women’s sports. This goes beyond tolerating different religions.
“Let people make their own medical decisions” could be said about anything, including things we all agree are barbaric and harmful. I’m still inclined to let adults get cosmetic surgery… but the problem is that a world that accommodates transition in every possible way is one that will make young people think “I can really change sex, and I’ll be treated like the opposite sex, or else people are bigots.”
It’s making a promise to young and vulnerable kids on behalf of society, and this leads to more risky medical interventions (approved by terrified parents who are told the alternative is suicide).
“We all have different beliefs” doesn’t get the movement much further than the basics you mentioned (anti-discrimination in employment and housing). Anything beyond that is like saying we’re going to make “accommodations” to Mormons or Baptists or Muslims that infringe on everyone else, cause serious medical harm, and indoctrinate everyone’s kids in public school.
"As someone who doesn't believe in gender identity, the restroom demand is that I must accept that some men will choose to use the women's restroom because they wish to- and, argued here, if I don't accept it there will be invasive testing of women?"
The thing I really want to emphasize here is that trans women mostly already use the women's restrooms because it would be very strange for someone who looks like a woman to use the men's room. My trans friend has never been questioned for using the women's room since she transitioned. But you know who has been questioned for using the ladies room? Literally all my butch friends, all of whom were absolutely born female but who have short hair and wear clothes that make them look ambiguous. If people tried to enforce a law about this, what would overwhelmingly happen is women who don't look feminine would get questioned constantly, while trans women who "pass" would be completely fine.
The locker room question is similar. Trans women who've had both top and bottom surgery would really stand out using the men's locker room, since all their exterior parts match other women. I can understand not wanting to see male genitals in the women's locker room, but we already make exceptions for this- after all, most mothers aren't comfortable taking their toddler sons into the men's room.
Really with all of these cases, I think involving the law at all is a mistake. Social pressure is enough at this point that trans women who haven't had bottom surgery are not usually willing to change their underwear in a women's locker room. Sports organizations should determine whether and under what rules trans women can fairly compete in their sports themselves without government involvement.
Yeah, I think there are harder spaces to navigate (locker rooms), but "use what bathroom makes sense for you" seems to work just fine. I know some trans folks that I guarantee would be more startling for those in the "biologically correct" bathroom versus them just using the bathroom that they feel comfortable in.
What do you think of laws forcing nude spas to allow people with male genitalia to self-ID as women, such as the one this spa is currently fighting in court?
https://komonews.com/news/local/women-only-spa-takes-fight-over-transgender-access-to-supreme-court-olympus-spa-lynnwood-tacoma-pierce-county-transgender-woman-identity-korean-body-scrubs
I basically think the distinction the spa was making was fine, which was that post-op trans women are allowed but not pre-op because people who patronize a women-only nude spa are very unlikely to be okay with seeing male genitalia in that setting- they wouldn't have sought out this particular experience if they were, and the person in question is frankly a jerk for bringing the case. The main thing I would emphasize is that the spa is already allowed to practice sex discrimination by being a women-only spa. If they were a spa with women's and men's sections, I would want them to make sure they have sections where trans or non-binary people could be accommodated, perhaps by having a mixed-gender area where everyone can not care.
Here's the problem--90% of these cross-dressing males keep their male genitalia because this is a fetish and they violate women's boundaries as part of the fetish. That's what gives them the thrill.
There are no "trans" people, and there is no such thing as "nonbinary." A mutilated male remains male anyway, so chopping up penises and testicles won't make them a non-threat or a woman. They can be told no.
There are women and there are men. That is the only thing that bathrooms, prisons, sports, spas, locker rooms can be based on. Doing anything else is a lie which result in chaos, and there will be naked males harassing women in spaces like spas and bathrooms.
There is no way to do this. It cannot be done. "A jerk"? That's quite literally the foundation of this fraud--men feeling entitled because their cultish delusions should supercede reality.
That's what Mr. Pritchard is asking for--capitulation. The answer is no.
The fact that you think all trans women are male fetishists tells me you know absolutely nothing about trans women. I know a few personally, but there's also a long history here. If you watch "Paris is Burning," you can see both drag queens and trans women, and you can also see the very typical behavior and sad history of trans women: that they are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
There are no “trans” women.
Those are all men. Men in dresses, men in wigs, men who get surgery to mangle their genitalia, even men who pass—they remain men.
They are not more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators. That lie was tried for several years, and now everyone sees that it was propaganda to trick women into allowing these men into women’s spaces because of “safety.”
They are far more likely to commit crimes than be victims of crimes because they remain violent like men are. That’s why there are men in women’s prisons all across the nation as we speak, attacking female inmates and causing problems.
Nobody believes this bullshit anymore. It’s 2026, not 2015. It just isn’t working, and I think you know that.
It's so clear to anyone who actually knows or talks to trans people, that you have no idea what you're talking about and get your information from weird and dark corners of the internet. I've spent hundreds of hours talking to suicidal LGBTQ+ youth, many of which were trans. It's not a fetish, and it's people like you who are the ones absolutely obsessed with genitals.
note that your summary is incorrect - people with male genitalia are explicitly excluded
No, my summary is correct. The spa wants to exclude people with male genitalia, but someone sued and won. The spa is challenging the ruling.
oh whoops, I misread what the issue was, sorry
I agree that in some random public restroom this probably isn't a problem. Nobody knows the person is trans, and everyone goes about their business.
the problem is places like schools. Where its not a random stranger
The problem, as feminists have been arguing for years, is that if you allow anyone into women's bathrooms, the self-policing that women have relied on which has kept men out is now gone. Why don't men use women's spaces? Not because it's illegal, but because there is a strong social tabboo against doing so that is reproduced in these spaces when women tell men they are in the wrong room. If we get rid of that by saying "mind your own business", don't tell people to get out and let anyone into women's spaces, they become less safe. The reality is that passing and mostly passing trans women will not be affected, which maintains safety for women. Any other policy just opens women's spaces to all men.
Your point brings up why it's an overall disservice to the trans movement to insist that mere self-identification should be a good enough standard to use sex-segregated spaces. I'd much rather the trans movement go in the direction of "changing documents to align with preferred gender should be burdensome enough to deter jokers but easy enough that anyone serious can do it quickly at low cost"; something like making it so you can only change them once every 5 years, maybe. Then the social standard is to not question people who look like they're making the effort to pass who are minding their own business, but that disputes should be settled with the documents. The legal standard in businesses should be to make sure people of any gender can use their facilities if they aren't a single-sex organization. Single-sex organizations should be allowed to set their own standards for how trans-inclusive they are.
There is no "trans" movement.
They're men, and they act like men.
Have you ever actually met a trans person? I know more trans men than trans women, but acting like they don't exist isn't going to make people not be trans. It's a very different thing than merely being a butch woman or a femme man.
but there is a trans movement and they are indeed different, whether or not (as the op says) you accept they are their new gender. your statement does not reflect reality.
I think the school should probably have some assessments to determine whether the kid is genuinely transitioning or if they're trying to "game the system" in some way, and probably allowing them to change somewhere separated from the other students is a possible solution. That said, at least when I was in school, we didn't take showers after PE so it's not like you'd ever see more than someone's underwear in the locker room.
This really seems to be a generational difference. My parents remember having to shower after gym class. NO ONE showered after gym when I was in school. And when you played school sports, games were after school and you just waited until you got home.
Yep, same with me! My school had showers in the locker rooms that went totally unused, but my parents showered after PE in school. Not sure if it was prudishness or instructional minutes concerns that killed off the practice.
All grant, it's going on thirty years now
I don't think we normally took showers
But i'm pretty sure we did after swimming
There might have been other times like after our wrestling matches.
"It’s making a promise to young and vulnerable kids on behalf of society, and this leads to more risky medical interventions (approved by terrified parents who are told the alternative is suicide)."
As medical technology advances, the ability for both kids and adults to transition is only going to improve. Many people that transition at a young age "pass" so to speak extremely well because they transitioned at a young age. That's the reason *why* protecting youth transition is important to trans people! You have a window of opportunity before puberty sets in.
Fundamentally imo a liberal pluralist society has to accept some (not all) agency on behalf of parents and kids. It's not fair to parents who are fine with youth transition to say they can't let their child transition, just because you don't want your kid to do so. Just the same as my parents have a right to raise me in their religion of liberal Episcopalianism which shaped my life and my views, as other parents have the right to raise their child in evangelical fundamentalism.
> It's not fair to parents who are fine with youth transition to say they can't let their child transition, just because you don't want your kid to do so.
I think our disagreement is that I view youth gender medicine as so harmful, it should not be done ever—similar to FGM or lobotomy. The medical risks speak for themselves, but I’m also convinced that it’s a psychological harm to set a child on a path to spend his/her entire life seeking validation of something false.
I know some people believe kids can be born in the wrong body, and can somehow know they’re the opposite sex, but this belief shouldn’t lead medical doctors to cause irreversible harm to children.
Medical technology will never reach the point where it becomes trivial to attempt to alter the body to this degree. Maybe the cosmetic outcome will improve, but you can’t break human development and functions without a lot of side effects and risks.
The problem with your argument is that there is no robust evidence available to prove your personal belief that “youth gender medicine..causes irreversible harm to children.” This is your personal intuition, but it has no support scientifically.
That’s simply not true. Firstly, for an intervention to be merited, you need to establish that it solves the problem it sets out to, and does not come with a risk of harm that outweighs therapeutic benefits. There is no such finding for the use of puberty blockers and surgery in trans kids at scale. This is why most European countries have paused these interventions. Secondly, sterilization is an irreversible harm and is recognized as such in pretty much every other context. Pediatric gender medicine asks children at 10,11,12 years old to foreclose the possibility of ever becoming a parent. That is an unacceptable cost.
"
I think our disagreement is that I view youth gender medicine as so harmful, it should not be done ever—similar to FGM or lobotomy
"
Agreed
You are welcome to your beliefs, but it is simply not true that medical technology isn't advancing. GLP-1's, mRNA vaccines, the list goes on. What we can do with the human body is incredible compared to even just 30 years ago. The idea that an injection or pill you take could solve obesity would be a complete fantasy idea two decades ago.
I could make an argument that hey, I could cite a whole bunch of reasons why organized religion is very bad for people and particularly kids and have most of the reasons backed up with solid evidence. At the end of the day it would not be sufficient to say this means we should make practicing religion with your kids involved illegal.
I really encourage you to spend some time reading about the drawbacks of pediatric gender medicine. I had a similar outlook to you based on my underlying values of liberal pluralism, but there’s poor evidence that it helps and great risk of harm. Denying a child the ability to one day choose to reproduce, or even to have an orgasm, is abusive.
It's not "gender medicine."
It's cultish mutilation and castration.
And the same thing applies to adults. We can say no to all of it. It's an attack on the sex binary and reality itself.
Agreed that gender-ideology is not unlike a religion, and you should be allowed to "practice" it, at least in private. That still doesn't make it acceptable to mutilate your kids. It's ironic how there's a backlash against circumcision these days - a relatively trivial (originally Jewish) cosmetic procedure - and yet it sounds like you are defending flat-out child castration as analogous to a religious right.
When you say "youth gender medicine", what exactly are you envisioning? Because your comparison to FGM or lobotomy causes me to think that you think the only youth gender medicine is surgery, which I'm sure has been done on some minor somewhere but is absolutely *not* what I understand to be normal practice in youth gender-affirming care. If I had a transgender child, I'd certainly allow them to dress the way they like and get puberty blockers, but I'd be extremely hesitant to allow them to pursue anything that could affect their fertility or sexual function until they were an adult. I think it is reasonable to ban elective surgeries for minors in general, and to place limits on the more permanent aspects of gender-affirming care. But puberty blockers and hormone treatments are *not* permanent but are the dominant part of youth gender medicine, and also targeted by many of the state bans, such that I know a family who moved to Canada because their 16-year-old could not longer get their medications. Would you ban that as well?
Thousands of gender affirming surgeries have been done on kids under 18. Here’s one article, a few years old (so the data are older). I’ve seen even bigger numbers, but this article is the first thing I grabbed quickly. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37610753/
Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are a significant medical and social intervention with permanent effects; it’s false that blockers are totally reversible with no lasting harms.
To answer your question, I would ban all medical interventions related to gender identity for kids under 18, including puberty blockers prescribed for the purpose of delaying natural and age-appropriate puberty because the child wishes to be a different sex.
Puberty blockers are not a neutral “pause” button because they delay the production hormones that play an important role in brain development in addition to having side effects like osteoporosis. I would not put my child on puberty blockers because I would be concerned about their brain health. There is not good evidence for their use outside of cases of precocious puberty.
They're not neutral, but many medications we let teenagers have are not neutral. I did both birth control and SSRIs as a teenager. In both cases, my parents, my doctor, and I decided together that the benefits were worth the costs. If I had a kid who decided very early on that they were not the gender they were assigned at birth, kept up with that belief for years, I would probably start with puberty blockers because we do generally have early puberty in my family so they'd need to start them in elementary school. If they were still set on transitioning by the end of middle school, I'd discuss options with their doctor and come to the best decision we could at that time. What I absolutely wouldn't do is force them to go through puberty for the "wrong" gender that they'd have to undo incompletely later.
Now, not every trans kid is that consistent and clear the whole time, so there are a lot of situations where I can imagine coming to different conclusions. But some of them are, and I still think the best of all the bad options is to let patients, parents, and doctors figure this out amongst themselves.
This is nothing like birth control or SSRIs, both of which have strong evidence bases and decades of data showing risk/benefits. There is no evidence that early gender interventions prevent or reduce suicidality in trans kids, and for those that do maintain gender dysphoria in adulthood, puberty blockers are associated with anorgasmia, osteoporosis, cognitive delays, sterility, and poor surgical outcomes because they do not have developed genital tissue to change. The medical groups (WPATH, etc) that are pushing this type of medicine are ideologically driven. I think this is not done from a sinister motivation (i don’t think people are “transing kids”) but i think there was a very very misguided idea of what is good for gender nonconforming kids that got out ahead of where the science was and is.
I want trans people, and kids, to be happy and healthy. They do not deserve to be experimented on in this way. I say this as a woman who was a tomboy for whom puberty was extremely upsetting. I think there is a strong chance that, had i been born ten years later, I would have picked up on this as an explanation and been irreversibly harmed by this, denied a shot at a normal sex life and a family before I was able to comprehend what that meant. Kids do not have the agency to understand the costs.
There are limits to religious tolerance, and I’m not sure public opinion will allow a religion that demands a castrated class of minors. It’s easy to imagine a church that claims that some young men are called to be eunuchs, but it would stretch American religious tolerance to its limits. And this tolerance argument will be the only argument that trans advocates can make if they are unable to build a valid scientific evidence base for gender affirming care.
I think you are stretching things. A religion that demands 10% of boys be castrated to serve as soldiers and guards for nobility is not the same as "Parents and kids should be allowed to make choices supported by their doctor".
You are appealing to the authority of medicine, which is fine if the medical authorities have good evidence behind their recommendations. The current problem is that they do not and are essentially lying about the evidence base.
I'm sure you can find some doctor somewhere that says FGM is good.
I dont care it should still be illegal
Same with gender transition for minors
...not to mention that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is part and parcel of some Gender Affirming Care. They are practically identical "socially-constructed" practices.
yes, Americans would never accept mutilation of children's genitals for religious purposes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
sure because that's exactly the same
This should also be illegal, but it is much lower stakes than castration.
I'm going to guess you are being sarcastic here, with your argument translating to: because americans have (for many decades) embraced circumcision, they might as well embrace child castration. Is that your point? Though circumcision is not without risk - John Money and his patient David/Brenda Reimer come to mind - surely you understand the difference?
> It’s easy to imagine a church that claims that some young men are called to be eunuchs,
This was really a thing until the 1800s; boys castrated before puberty apparently had a very specific and prized singing voice. This book review from 2022 still sticks with me: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-castrato
And it was good we moved past it.
It was barbaric and wrong
Do you think female genital mutilation (e.g. a clitorectomy) should be allowed on religious grounds if the parents consent? Extreme ritual scarring? What if a throwback parent wants his child to be a castrato for his church? That's a pretty extreme libertarian take on parental rights, if so.
If not, it seems reasonable to also limit the ability for parents to decide to sterilize and castrate their children, etc.
I think the religion analogy is good, and I think it gets you farther than employment & housing nondiscrimination.
Medical care: so I personally think circumcision is bad and nobody should do it, and when relevant I make the argument, but I absolutely would not want the state to ban it, and people who want to do it for religious (or other) reasons absolutely can
(a possible & valid response here is "what about FGM". I totally do bite the bullet that if an adult freely wants to get FGM done on themself they should be allowed to do that. obviously no one should forcibly have FGM done on them. I suppose I agree it should not be allowed for minors bc minors can't control their lives enough for the presupposition to be that they made this decision independently. I can see how for someone who thinks transgender medical are is harmful this could be a valid analogy! and there I guess my disagreement does have to come down to the object level that I don't think the expected value or risk level is similar. but, I think that the analogy is weaker with puberty blockers or hormones than with surgery, and the chemical stuff is where most of the battle is in practice)
Bathrooms: I'll note that most legislation on the topic is about *preventing* trans people from using the bathroom they'd naturally choose to use, and trans pushback about that is mostly about preserving the *non*-legislated status quo. I'd argue that legislation banning trans men from the men's bathroom is analogous to imposing a religious practice, where the religion is "no matter how your body looks, if you were born a woman you are definitely a woman" (which is in practice pretty common-sensically absurd when applied to thoroughly transitioned trans men).
What to teach kids: I think it seems mostly pretty good to treat this pretty much like religion in a pluralist society? parents who are bought into trans stuff will teach their kids that, parents who aren't will teach their kids the opposite, schools should facilitate environments where kids don't bully each other about which thing they believe & there's generally an environment of tolerance
> the religion is "no matter how your body looks, if you were born a woman you are definitely a woman"
But this is objectively the truth. It’s not a belief — it’s basic biology. No one can change sex. If we treat this as an opinion (a prejudiced one!) all sorts of things break.
There isn’t even a coherent definition of what it means to “be a woman” if it’s not biology. It’s either stereotypes, appearance, or a circular definition (someone who identifies as a woman).
In terms of children, this isn’t like religion where most families do their own thing without issue. Thanks to the social contagion and well-meaning educators, there is often conflict between kids and parents. I’m sure you’ve heard of the cases where a child “transitions” at school and the teachers conspire to keep it a secret from parents, or when the child confronts her parents with demands to transition, threatening suicide if they don’t go along. For the families affected by this, “let’s all respect each other” didn’t work, because the parents’ views were not respected by teachers, peers, messages in media, and so on.
"But this is objectively the truth. It’s not a belief — it’s basic biology. No one can change sex. If we treat this as an opinion (a prejudiced one!) all sorts of things break."
I disagree with this!
or like, I do kind of think that there is no good one-true-definition of "what is a woman" that works for every context. I think that's just kind of how concepts work, it's a complexity that's in the territory, not the map
A definition based on identity fails in some medical or athletic contexts. but a definition based on birth sex *also* fails in some medical contexts (and, I would argue, even in some athletic ones: I don't think anyone wants trans guys on T to compete in women's division). and it also fails in social contexts where I'd argue the "real" thing that people base their behavior on is how people look/dress/act
again I note the example of fully-medically-transitioned trans men, who according to some anti-trans legislation are supposed to use the women's bathroom even though that makes everyone uncomfortable
I basically think this is a messy conceptual field where any blanket policy is going to have absurd results some of the time and the common-sense thing to do is to approach stuff on a case-by-case basis and just kinda live and let live
Re: kids, I think the thing you say is also true of religion! kids will absolutely deconvert from their parents' religions because they encounter information that causes them to change their minds. and I think most attempts to prevent kids from doing so do are pretty harmful, not least to the parent-child relationship. I think parents should do their best to make their case to their kids through their upbringing that their way of life is good, and should not forcibly prevent their kids from finding and adopting a different way of life.
Just wanted to say kudos to the Argument for this series, which is off to a great start. This essay is going to stick with me.
Agreed, my thanks to Cassie for a great essay.
He can be told no. This essay is pathetic. As if it's the American way to put men in women's bathrooms. He's the nuisance.
He can use the men's.
I've come around to the "no different from religion" framing myself.
In the United States, we are expected to respect the religious beliefs of other people whether we agree with them or not. You're expected not to pick fights about the scientific credibility of the bible, and if someone says their religion requires them not to eat pork you make sure the menu can accommodate.
But of course, if you want to get together with a bunch of your atheist friends and talk about how none of you believe in God, that's okay. And if you choose to raise your children in a non-religious household, that's fine too.
This is how I think of it as well. A trans person's belief that they are a man or a woman should be respected as much as any religious belief, and by the same token no one else should be forced to profess that belief. You do not disrespect anyone simply by not sharing their beliefs about gender any more then you do by not sharing their beliefs about god (but you also shouldn't be a dick to other people because of what they do or don't believe about it.)
I don't agree with Cassie on the nature of gender, but I appreciate that she's making this argument and encouraging her fellow trans people and those on the left to adopt her framing. There is still going to be a rough road to work out what are the most broadly acceptable policies on bathrooms, sports, kids etc, but I think it will be easier if we aren't spending so much energy arguing about what are essentially metaphysical beliefs.
Beliefs themselves are kind of morally inert. It’s when those beliefs eventuate in action that politics enters the picture, because the actions can generate conflict. Eg a Mormon who believes they can or should take multiple wives for cosmic orgies in the afterlife cannot do so legally. Nor can a Muslim marry their cousin in most US states, even though cousin marriage is quite common in Muslim countries.
The metaphysical beliefs are important because they ground claims about acceptable tradeoffs. Don’t let the word spook you, metaphysical and ontological here just mean “what’s actually true.” And yeah, it matters whether trans women are in fact women or whether we agree to treat them as such in certain contexts out of love, tolerance, and respect for civil rights even though we know they aren’t actually women because they make small gametes.
This is a great essay and I applaud the author but you can’t slip the need for metaphysical clarity that easily. The good news is that it’s actually not that hard. There are two sexes, defined by gamete size as they are across all organisms that reproduce sexually. We tolerate different gender expressions because that’s the right thing to do, but those expressions have limits where uncritical tolerance might end up harming others — in bathrooms, or prisons, or the boxing ring, or basketball court, or the pediatrician’s clinic.
You've done a great job here of identifying the cleavage point in American viewpoints on trans issues. Basic civil rights protections in things like housing and employment do not depend on one's belief in the gender claims of trans activists. You can usually get Americans on board with universalist rights-based arguments, that's more or less how gay marriage won.
But some of the demands of trans activists on sports participation, prisons, and (though I'd argue to a lesser extent) bathrooms do depend on agreeing that trans women are women, and because most Americans don't believe that in the strictest possible sense there's far less support there. That's exacerbated by the fact that there's no bar for transness beyond self identification which creates the possibility for abuse of protected women's spaces by men if we open those spaces up to trans women. I don't think you're likely to see a huge growth in support for those positions because they do have a zero sum quality (protect biological women or include trans women) that does not exist for civil rights protections. In any case, good piece, and I think you nailed the prevailing attitude of 'fuck you, respect me' that comes along with a lot of trans advocacy.
I think the basic error was understanding trans rights as ‘just like’ gay rights or the rights of other marginalized groups, when it’s actually about six different debates dressed up in a trench coat. Men and women occupy both biological roles and social roles. I am completely fine understanding trans women as occupying the social role of a woman, as I do; I don’t need an ontology of gender to be normal to trans people I encounter day to day, and I think that gender expression should be a protected civil right in the social sense. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
But I simply, as a feminist, cannot be brought to the understanding that a trans woman is a woman in the same way I am or that sex can literally be changed. While that’s none of my business 99.9% of the time, I therefore will have a different position on questions which force questions of biological differences between the sexes— like, well, changing rooms (I do not want to see your dick in there, trans or cis); prisons; rape crisis shelters; sports and medicine. I think the biological/social divide is the important difference here and I think the trans side of the debate will have to concede parts of it, with a certain amount of case-by-caseism going on.
Completely agree
I disagree that allowing trans women to use their preferred bathrooms or other women's spaces depends on the believe that they are women. There are other arguments to make: a) Trans women are a vulnerable group and safer in women's spaces b) trans women pose no threat to women c) letting people choose their prefered room is the most practical solution, as many people pass and also nobody will check other people's genitals. I think the most important, because contested argument is b. So far, at least when it comes to bathrooms, it seems to be that trans women are no threat to women anymore than other women. There might be cases in prisons, women shelters etc where this is the case (I don't know). I think the solution is to have unbiased research exploring this question, and if the outcome is that on some cases, trans women (or, what seems to be a bigger fear, men pretending to be trans women) do pose a threat, one has to look at the circumstances: what kind of rules and factors endanger women, and how to change them?
Beliefs such as "you should never question somebody's self-identification" and that any desire ever to transition should be met with affirmation is not helpful. I do believe that many people benefit from transitioning, but not everybody. Many people cite there is less than 1% regret, but if you look at the research, it doesn't seem to rest on a solid methodology. I also believe that plurality of opinions on the subject is helpful to critically observe each other's data and premises.
Yeah this is where I think we really need to leave discretion to local judges and other authorities. If a trans woman is making a good faith effort to pass, has a demonstrated history of doing so, and doesn’t pose a threat to others it just seems plainly wrong to prevent her from continuing to pass by using those spaces.
This does introduce a lot of ambiguity into adjudication, but our legal system is built to handle that kind of thing. We shouldn’t expect an answer once and for all.
I do absolutely think that the insistence that the only thing that should matter to trans identity is self-identification is very harmful to trans people's access to a lot of these spaces. I get that some people will never pass, but we should set the bar a little less generously than self-identification because it is so obviously open to the kind of abuse by men you describe.
yeah that’s the other problem, especially in prisons.
No matter how you frame them, some trans rights arguments violate the average person’s common sense and will never be accepted by majorities. Biological men have innate physical advantages that favor them in sports, and it shows a lack of respect for women to allow them to dominate their sports.
Also kids don’t have the maturity to consent to irreversibly altering their bodies, lacking the perspective needed to assess whether gender dysphoria is a temporary feeling that will ultimately resolve itself through gayness or anti-depressants.
As you noted though, most Americans support traditional civil rights for trans people (anti-discrimination laws), which already exist. Accept this victory and neuter the anti-trans backlash by not pushing the envelope further than what society is prepared to accept and which common sense dictates against.
Well that’s sort of my argument, right? Not everyone, or not even majorities are going to agree with us on all of our premises; the work is to negotiate fair and inclusive policies premised on pluralistic tolerance instead.
I think letting go of the ontological premises would require letting go of some and maybe many and maybe even most of the policy goals pursued by activists over the past decade plus. With the important exception of anti-discrimination, as you discuss.
I think that's the correct approach and also the correct result, but convincing people to move the goalposts so radically may be difficult. Especially people whose decisions to transition were premised on the (perhaps unrealistic) idea that they would be able to fully integrate into society as the opposite gender.
i mean look at the responses to your article. you gave an inch and you inmediatly just have anti trans zealots coming into your comments and spewing harmful rhetoric. i saw one comparing children transitioning to lobotomy. i agree with your argument but at the same time, you need to argue that being trans and transitioning is not a choice. theres actually case law to back this up, but in american there is generally no civil rights granted if someone i herantly chooses to be in a group. you will not see a civil rights for republicans act, or for furries, anytime soon. if it seems like a choice, it will not have support. right now, the fight is on proving being trans is not a choice.
"american there is generally no civil rights granted if someone i herantly chooses to be in a group."
Religious beliefs?
“generally”. also see every civil right won after the constitution. there is none based on choice. religion is an exception and was not fought for in modern america
Familial status, veteran status
Once divorced or a veteran, you can no longer choose to not have that divorce have happened, and you cannot choose to not be a veteran. Both of these are one choice, not a continued one. A better phrasing may be “rights are contingent on if one can chooe NOT to be a member of this class once they are a member of it.” If being trans is viewed as something once can choose to STOP being, then any rights will be met with a simple, “just stop choosing to be trans”.
"the fight is on proving being trans is not a choice"
I honestly don't think it matters. Even if I grant that it's not a choice, I don't see how you get from there to biological males must be allowed in women's only sports or spaces
If you cannot choose to be trans, then you are not choosing to be in women’s only spaces. You are trans, it is a fact about you, and you belong more in womens spaces. From there we can then discuss which spaces you’d want trans people in, and to what extent. But if someone can choose to be or not be trans, then it simply becomes “bad actors will choose to be trans to gain access to these spaces”. If we accept this is a genuine request born out of necesity, then an actual conversation can be had.
You might be Trans but you still aren't a woman and literally nothing you can do will make it so
I don’t believe I made any assertations as to your beliefs about trans women or my own. It would be nice if you could address anything I actually said.
I agree with much of what you wrote, and you make a good point about respectability politics. I’m just saying that no amount of respectability politics can push past the hard limits of political gravity, like rejection of biological men in women’s sports.
"Also, kids don’t have the maturity to consent to irreversibly altering their bodies" I agree, but the logical conclusion of this statement is that puberty blockers (not cross-sex hormones, not surgery) should be available to minors who pass through appropriate psychological screening. Many of the effects of puberty are irreversible (or at best, very costly to reverse, and only reversed imperfectly). Puberty blockers are reversible. Puberty blockers may have some long-term side effects, but given the available evidence, those are minor compared to the harm of an undesired puberty.
Should it be legal for a family to request puberty blockers because the family and child have decided that the kid isn’t ready to grow up, and needs a few more “years to be a kid with mom?” Or for any other seemingly frivolous or strange reason, like wanting the child to delay puberty so it co-occurs with a younger sibling’s puberty? I suppose some hardcore libertarians would bite the bullet on this, but everyone else is making questionable assumptions about the validity of gender identity as a clinical construct. There’s actually no great evidence that gender affirming care treats gender dysphoria, or that anyone is harmed by a “wrong puberty.” Some trans people may claim to be harmed by puberty, but counter factual speculations about personal history are not generally taken seriously in psychology. Eg: “I would be happy today if my crush from high school had dated me” or “I could never accomplish my career goals because the coach ruined my self esteem when he cut me from the team.”
Puberty blockers were literally invented to delay puberty in children that were deemed unprepared for it. That was their original purpose, to treat cis people (usually girls)
There's been controversy over their use for precocious puberty as well: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems
And they delay puberty for longer in trans kids, past a developmentally normal age, so it's a different use case with different medical and social implications.
yes but that was a temporary thing, a girl started puberty at 9, we delay it till 11 then puberty commences as normal. That's now how they are being used though.
Then are using it to stop puberty, and then transition later. That's not comparable at all
Puberty blockers slow brain development. Even if that's reversible enough in the long term for ultimate IQ to be unaffected (which is unclear), the treatment still impacts brain function during critical years of academic and social development.
yes, puberty is a normal and natural part of brain development and maturity
"Puberty blockers are reversible."
not the way they are being used
"Puberty blockers may have some long-term side effects, but given the available evidence, those are minor compared to the harm of an undesired puberty"
strongly disagreed
I think the question of puberty blockers (and youth gender medicine in general) is going to be solved in a few years when lawsuits start coming in from adults who underwent this treatment as kids and are suffering the negative consequences as adults. The downsides of tinkering with puberty, and particularly delaying the natural onset of puberty, are huge. the evidence that these treatments are helpful is shaky. Too much of U.S. youth gender medicine doesn't follow the protocols set by the dutch because it is deemed too gatekeepy. I really think there will be a rash of lawsuits in a few year by people who were rushed into a medicalized path.
There has already been at least one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varian_v_Einhorn
Taking puberty blockers until age 18 seems like it would pose more risks to someone's health than just taking cross-sex hormones.
There are a lot of non-controversial things that irreversibly alter the body or mind of kids. And kids don't have the maturity to consent generally - whether to big or small things. I'm not necessarily disagreeing and if anything I'd say we need to safeguard children from more things they don't decide for themselves. But at the same time, human society has functioned largely because parents make significant and irreversible decisions for their children. So framing it that way kind of does everything and nothing.
This is not an issue I am well versed on or care all that much about, but I do think the author makes a great point but maybe misses half the picture.
I think a lot of people felt like social institutions: Hollywood, video game studios, schools, athletic organizations, and governing health bodies really rushed past public opinion and medical data to push the issue into everyone's field of vision, and in some cases, like schools, prisons, and family court it seemed rather...poorly thought out.
I think some acknowledgment that was a weird time, and the future will be different would help the cause. Some sense of limiting principles.
But hey, I think the same thing about the pandemic response, so maybe that's just my desire shared by few others.
I think some version of this view is commonly held by many people—maybe a plurality or even a majority.
I’d argue it’s not quite right, but I understand where it comes from; in particular, the advocacy strategy for trans rights *was* mainly elite- and institution-focused from the mid 2000s through til ~2024.
Nearly all the wins that came for us during that ~20 year period did so because rule-making bodies, federal or state agencies, courts, or other institutions (universities, firms, etc) issued judgments in our favor. There wasn’t much in the way of legislation, or the kind of popular political struggles that lead to legislation.
That means we didn’t actually secure public buy-in or build any kind of popular coalition that was truly on board. Instead, we lobbied (and then pressured) elites, who issued new rules. This contributed to the “this trans stuff came out of nowhere” feeling that much of mainstream cis America felt, and it meant we didn’t have the kind of durable support that comes with a genuine popular coalition.
On the other hand, the elite-focused strategy was largely working! We got more healthcare access, more discrimination protections, more inclusion in public life. So I can’t entirely blame the people who chose these methods; they did make a certain kind of sense. It’s more about the downstream, second-order effects of having an advocacy movement that went decades without feeling much (if any) need to persuade the *public*
Trans folks got more healthcare access and in the process unwittingly helped usher in a president and legislators determined to gut our health care, SNAP, and other social programs. A slice of a shrinking pie. In hindsight maybe not a great outcome.
No, we got that because inflation was 9%. If inflation had topped out at 5%, Kamala could've had a trouple of dancing transgender women during her convention speech and still won.
I don't think we can blame Trump's election on increased access to transgender healthcare. To the extent that trans issues had an effect on the election, it was probably because of sports, prisons, and activist rhetoric.
That’s not true. Trans issues were an incredibly successful wedge driving people to the GOP.
I'm saying that the backlash from people having the sense that things had changed without their input ("this trans stuff came out of nowhere") could have contributed to the factors that you mentioned in affecting the close election. But I am not a student of elections and don't claim to have answers.
Annecdotally, this is an issue where I have noticeably shifted to the left over the years (even if a trans person utterly fails to pass, it is easy enough to humor them). But good god could the trans activists be annoying sometimes. Off the top of my head, I have lost count of the number of people who directly equated being referred to by the wrong pronouns with actual violent assault. A comparison which I am not inclined to take seriously
Completely agree that this is the best way forward on trans issues. Whether you believe ontologically whether transition is possible has no bearing on whether you think someone choosing to undergo medical procedures should be deprived of any rights or face discrimination, and I think Americans are pretty clear on that.
But politics is all about the edge case. Where are the edge cases here?
Not edge case: discrimination of trans adults in housing, employment, education, professional, voting rights, necessary medical care
Edge cases: anything involving minors, specifically parental involvement in anything involving transition (medical treatment to how their child is registered legally/in school), whether and how minors would access trans medicine, and second, which spaces should remain exclusively biologically female. Bathrooms are an example of something that probably would do best with the sex you present as (which itself triggers a discussion of "passing", but I think challenging bans on the basis of concerns around enforcement are excellent here) while competitive sports are somewhere that the public is obviously leaning to keep women's sports fully segregated.
Overall I wish articles like this would be much more specific about what the author genuinely thinks about these edge cases and makes the argument.
Thr counter argument here is that equal protection under the law is based on more than just written words. It requires individuals in society to follow a set of norms, which arises from a shared belief in human dignity. As evidenced by some of the comments to this article, we're so far from this on trans rights that it will hinder any attempt to pass basic civil rights protection. If anything we're seeing backpedaling on the idea of broad based civil rights, with laws crafted to specifically target one group of people.
It’s definitely difficult and concerning! But I think part of why we’re struggling is we haven’t been making these kinds of appeals enough, leaving the field effectively ceded to a significant degree. We gotta get out there and make these classic civil rights arguments, because the arguments we’ve been making clearly haven’t been working, and there’s some evidence we can make up ground with a more pluralistic approach!
" It requires individuals in society to follow a set of norms, which arises from a shared belief in human dignity"
I agree there's some of that there. But I think there's also a lot of traditional "tolerance". Note I said tolerance not acceptance.
Tolerance means I don't like what you are doing, but it's a free country so you get to do what you want. If you accept something or think it's good, that's not tolerance.
During the early LGBT days there was a big focus on tolerance, just let me live my life you don't need to approve. But then that changed and there was a big push that you must not just tolerate but celebrate these alternative lifestyles. So of course you got a bunch of push back as the left tried to force a big cultural change
The general hostility to the idea of respectability politics is especially confusing when the history of universal rights movements regularly saw those movements deploy some kind of respectability politics, usually to great effect. As you note, the gay rights movement of 2000-2015 pushed for marriage partly to center the most "normal" version of gay culture, and it won. The Civil Rights movement used non-violent demonstrations to visibly prove to anyone with a TV that Black people were so non-threatening that they wouldn't even fight back against someone repeatedly punching them as a powerful demonstration that Jim Crow laws excluded people for no reason, and it won. These movements did not wholly abandon their pride, but they did make many tactical decisions about how they presented themselves to increase public buy-in that greatly solidified their victories and mainstreamed their core positions.
After 2016, I was confused to see this strategy not only abandoned, but spoken of as if it had never worked when we had seen its powerful results scarcely a year ago. Since then much of the left has adopted the mystifying belief that the best way to win rights in a democracy is to insult and threaten the majority group as often as possible, as if one can intimidate a voting block into allyship. Having to make compromises for rights that should already be inherent is unfair, but a minority rights movement must fight and win on terrain fortified against it. I hope we remember this soon and return to winning lasting victories.
I mean, I think the reality is there were just as many people in 1965 among black Americans who opposed respectability politics (might've heard of this guy called Malcolm X) and ACT UP did plenty of things Andrew Sullivan didn't like - it's just the elites were the face of the movement, regardless of what actual people thought.
Like, if we had Twitter in 1965, I'm sure there would've been popular black radicals saying things online that a lot of other black people shared that caused backlash.
Sure Malcom X had plenty of followers, but he didn't lead the March on Washington or most of the famous anti-segregation protests that won the national political battle. I think it's clear which of the two was more effective. It's true that the organized Civil Rights movement used carefully planned tactics that did not always feel satisfying to radicals, that's why they were so successful.
That said, it is important to acknowledge that while MLK's protests were calibrated for impact on an electorate mostly composed of white people, those protests still centered around the deliberate violation of laws. An effective left-wing movement will need to offend people at times because you can't make the case that society is structured wrong without telling a lot of people that they've been doing things wrong for most of their life. While I'm as much of a habitual leftist-lecturer as the average reader, the current brand offlailing at Trump's excesses displayed by the current party leadership is not a continuation of past successes either. I just want us to offend with substance rather than style, and to return to the cycle of steady advancements in liberalism that I used to see.
This essay still seems to say, if it was politically viable to browbeat people into outwardly professing the preferred epistemic beliefs about gender, that would be preferred over a regime of mutual tolerance.
It’s going to be hard to have a center left coalition with those beliefs.
It’s like if a Catholic in the West said, “yes obviously it would be preferable to establish a state which recognized papal supremacy, but I accept it’s not politically viable right now, so though it pains me greatly to tolerate these heretics, I will for now.”
I think the “for now” bit is the really important one. So long as that is the ideological line, it’s going to be hard to get center-left buy in.
For several months now, I’ve watched you gleefully mock liberals notions around economic rights and material prosperity on X.
I find it incredibly cynical to watch you turn around and then try to use the same fundamental ideas you’ve been dunking on to advance this argument. And notwithstanding that it is largely correct in my view though I reach slightly different policy conclusions in some cases, you strike me as an unsympathetic and bad faith avatar to be advancing this world view when you’ve been so casual and wanton in your denigration of economic freedoms.
Not just economic freedoms, she is pro CCP against Taiwan and Tibet. She's a tankie in sheeps clothing, and its genuinely confusing to me why a Liberal magazine is publishing her
The site’s not called The Agreement
Its not really "confronting the illiberal drift" to invite on one of the most illiberal people on Twitter though
As Jerusalem wrote in her defense of staying on Twitter, "What I take issue with is a politics of hygiene, of cleanliness, a politics where you are judged not by the ultimate impact of your actions but by your ability to demonstrate your total and complete separation from that which you deem evil." The author's words in this piece appear compatible with liberalism and therefore are suitable for publication in The Argument.
Supposing your characterization of her views is true (I would not know and can't be bothered to check), I agree it's a shame she has illiberal opinions on other topics, but what is the ultimate impact of publishing her on this topic? A few dozen or a hundred more Twitter followers?
This doesn't discredit her piece at all, but it's maybe interesting for others: she is the cocaine/banana twitter person of the week from a few years ago.
I don't see why invoking liberalism in this context requires any particular view on economic issues.
It doesn’t. I basically agree with Cassie’s argument.
My point is that it’s bad politics for her to mock liberalism in an economic context, but then appeal to it in a freedom of expression / individualism context.
For an essay replete with thoughts about political strategy and coalition building, Cassie has not at all thought through how her cynicism will play with folks who really think liberalism has to be taken seriously in all contexts, not just cafeteria style. Maybe it doesn’t matter and that group of people is quite small.
But I think it’s still a form of “respect me!” politics for her to say “liberals over here you’re a bunch of morons, but over here will you help me make a liberal argument please?”
Cassie's pro-trans pragmatism reminds me of the great interview between Ezra Klein and our first and only trans Congressperson Sarah McBride:
https://youtu.be/KlbNFsAGFRc?is=4SEz4s-hyOOT01jW
Caring about trans lives motivates a triage of the most essential trans rights, and building a sustainable path towards greater acceptance.
that was a great interview
I think to be honest there became a set of contradictory beliefs, mostly because trans people are not a monolith, and that made it a challenge to be a good ally (but of course if you mentioned that, you'd get some sneering "do the work" or "it's not my job to educate you."). If gender is a social construct, which I can largely get behind, what does it even mean for me to agree with "trans women are women"? There are very few social settings where if someone is a woman or a man changes how I'd behave to them -- certainly those cannot be the point of the utterance. Trans women also have very different lived experience than cis women -- they're well-represented in computer science, for instance, but if our goal was to increase the representation of women (in cs), it seems to miss the point because trans women were basically never female-presenting until after perhaps critical stages.
Anyway, all this to say that I think focusing on kindness, tolerance, and fairness is probably a much easier path than trying to get everyone to understand a bunch of sociology.