Crossing the Line: Criticizing Trans Activism vs Bashing Trans People
Currents
Few topics are more politically volatile right now than trans issues. Matters such as pediatric medical transition and questions about access to and the purpose of women's sports and spaces are complex debates that require nuance and time. Unfortunately, discussions of these issues are generally dominated by extreme, intolerant ideologues who fail to distinguish between ideas and people. As someone deeply concerned about some aspects of trans ideology, it pains me that the discussion of these delicate issues more often resembles a Jerry Springer marathon than a meaningful public policy debate.
The currently dominant, no-holds-barred strain of trans activism has spawned a right-wing backlash that has troubling implications for the broader gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities. During Pride month, this became even more evident. The right led boycotts against stores with Pride displays, leveraged the excesses of trans activism to give new life to old arguments — that the legalization of same-sex marriage was a “slippery slope” — and broadcast alarmist warnings about “state-enforced homosexuality.” This has emboldened religious fundamentalists and opportunistic provocateurs eager to seize this opportunity to propagate homophobic messages. The backlash has sent the right veering ever further towards extremism that may have the political result of curtailing the hard-earned basic rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
Pushback against the more extreme aspects of the transgender movement is absolutely warranted, but it isn't a partisan issue, despite how frequently the political left and right portray it as such. Like so many issues that get caught in the warring political tribes dynamic, we should refrain from seeing ourselves in an existential fight against evil, irredeemable forces. The fact remains that most people across society are good and have good intentions — even those who disagree with you politically. Those of us who are critical of the excesses of trans activism need to raise awareness and a better understanding of the actual issues. And currently, it is the left that will require the most persuasion from us.
The stakes are too high to take the wrong approach. Pediatric gender medicine needs to be subjected to systematic evidence reviews. The widespread implementation of “gender-affirming care” — a dangerously broad medical model supported by weak evidence — is a genuine cause for alarm. If we do not want the left to dismiss our valid concerns as mere bigotry, we must approach these matters judiciously. Otherwise, US-based medical organizations will continue to dismiss even the most reasonable calls to reconsider their treatment protocols as simply part of a right-wing moral panic.
It is natural to feel frustrated and angry in the face of what many of us sincerely believe to be an unfolding medical scandal — but we must redirect this energy into constructive dialogue and strategic action rather than resorting to counterproductive hyperbole. People’s beliefs can change with exposure to new information. I’m living proof: I used to be a so-called “social justice warrior”, but I changed my own views on “gender medicine” (and other important issues dumbed down by the culture wars) after discussing the issue with people who presented compelling evidence and reasoned arguments, rather than inflammatory rhetoric.
Our best chance of facilitating positive change is to try to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved, learn how to communicate more effectively, base our arguments on credible evidence, avoid taking part in online pile-ons, and employ precise, careful language that addresses beliefs or specific policies — not individuals. The first step is understanding the beliefs and policies involved. Conversations about transgender issues can be difficult because there are so many different interpretations of the relevant terminology. Even the basic definition of what it means to be trans is a subject of intense debate.
Many people on the political left insist that everyone possesses an innate and immutable “gender identity” present from birth, which can be known from a very young age, and rarely, if ever, changes. In this view, being transgender is an inborn trait (like sexual orientation) rather than a choice: people are born that way, and they have no say in the matter. For many, to question these views is to attack the very existence of trans people.
This belief is sincere, but it is not accurate. The empirical evidence does not support the idea of an inherent, hardwired “gender identity.” There is currently no objective test — neither neurological nor of any other kind — that can differentiate between an individual who identifies as trans and one who does not, especially when we control for confounding factors like sexual orientation. Even most definitions of gender and “gender identity”, increasingly cemented into law and public policy, are circular and self-referential.
However, there is a wealth of evidence that gender nonconformity — encompassing preferences, behaviors, traits, and presentations that deviate from the norm associated with one's biological sex — is a natural part of human variation, influenced in part by prenatal testosterone exposure. Gender nonconformity is strongly associated with homosexuality and is particularly prevalent among those with autism. Prior to 2006, gay male children dominated pediatric gender clinic referrals. That has changed dramatically in recent years. Nowadays, adolescent females, many of whom are autistic, make up the majority lining up at gender clinics. For activists, this apparently doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. It is simply a sign of greater societal acceptance. For me and many others, given the permanent impacts of gender medicine, such a rapid flipping of demographics warrants, at a minimum, closer inspection. Up to 35% of adolescents referred to the largest gender clinic in the UK displayed "moderate to severe autistic traits", with some pediatric gender programs reporting that approximately half of the youth in their studies are autistic. Shouldn’t that set off alarm bells?
Graph shows the percentage of individuals in each participant group who identified as transgender or cisgender. Individuals with a diagnosis of autism were more likely to identify as transgender. Source: Science Direct
People are born with various inherent traits, such as gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and neurological differences like autism. Additionally, some individuals may be born predisposed to psychiatric conditions, which may include gender dysphoria — the significant and persistent distress with one's biological sex. However, a predisposition towards gender dysphoria does not guarantee a transgender outcome. In fact, the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria do not identify as transgender into adulthood. Most of them simply end up as homosexual adults.
Many scientific and civil rights organizations, however, have begun broadening the definition of “transgender” to encompass all instances of gender nonconformity. According to this wide classification, if a person's behavior or gender expression doesn’t align with traditional expectations for their sex, they are transgender. This expanded definition, a symptom of concept creep, is likely playing a large role in the rapidly escalating rates of people identifying as trans. Certain individuals who are born gender-nonconforming may interpret their sex-atypical traits and behaviors (including same-sex attractions), along with any distress their gender-nonconformity may cause them, as evidence that they have a "gender identity" mismatched from their body. As a result, they may wish to identify as transgender, be acknowledged as the opposite sex, and seek medical procedures that they believe will bring their bodies into alignment with their perceived sense of self.
Worryingly, many well-respected medical organizations and healthcare officials in the US are perpetuating this confusion. Informed by a misguided and imprudent model, they are prematurely “affirming” newly-adopted cross-sex identities by psychosocial, chemical, and surgical means without sufficiently investigating the root causes of the individual's gender-related distress. Meanwhile, the “Dutch Protocol” which guided, inspired, and justified the establishment of current American gender care standards, involved extensive counseling and other safeguards — safeguards which now have been largely removed in the US.
Most people are not aware of any of this. When this information is presented to them in alarmist language that suggests the speaker is primarily motivated by partisan scaremongering, they are less receptive to it and may even feel attacked. But if we present the facts calmly, people are reachable. By fostering sincere and compassionate communication, we can also assist those who might regret transitioning in the future to make informed decisions while still respecting the choices of adults who wish to maintain their trans identity.
Those of us who are critical of some aspects of trans ideology often point to the importance of social influence when we talk about people adopting transgender identities. But we forget that we can exert an influence on the behavior of people in our own peer groups too and that we therefore have a duty to model reasoned discourse if we don’t want the entire debate to descend into frenzied partisanship.
It can be reassuring to find a community of like-minded individuals online, especially if you have to self-censor in real life — as is the case with many who hold gender-critical views. It’s tempting to focus on winning allies among your new in-group, and one cheap and easy way to garner online popularity is to deride members of the outgroup. But it’s important to resist the influence of groupthink, or we can quickly end up in an echo chamber in which our opinions are never challenged.
These polarized environments inherently reward extreme views and penalize moderation. Online interactions make individuals more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors due to factors like anonymity, reduced accountability, and a mistaken feeling that what we do online doesn’t matter in the “real” world. In one particularly disturbing new example of this phenomenon, people in the gender-critical camp have been using the unfalsifiable claim that “being kind is what got us here” — a form of slippery slope fallacy — as a license to now be wantonly vindictive and cruel. And while it's true that the notion of kindness was too often misused by trans activists to shut down debate and critical thinking, disparaging people now won't win us any allies. For better or worse, a person’s sex cannot truly be changed, but insulting people who think otherwise will not change their minds.
This underscores the importance of setting boundaries — establishing limits on what is acceptable or tolerable behavior from others. Boundaries allow you to protect your values from being compromised by external influences. If someone oversteps a limit you've set, you have the right to voice your disagreement or distance yourself from that individual or organization. Remember, you can always opt out of group membership and still continue to fight for what you believe in.
Online tribalism is also heightened by algorithmic bias, which fills our timelines with outlier events presented as if they were the norm. In gender-critical discourse, our social media feeds often amplify the worst and most extreme examples the transgender community has to offer. Of course, nothing we see on these platforms is an accurate, representative sample of the millions of trans people globally.
Like all groups of people, those who identify as transgender or transsexual (as some prefer to be called) are not a monolith. There are many ways of being trans. Most trans people are not interested in erasing sex-based legal rights: they are simply trying to live their lives as an integrated part of society. And, as we know from the growing prevalence of detransitioners, trans-identity is not always permanent.
We should differentiate between the broader population of trans people and the social media activists who promote radical ideologies — many of whom are not themselves trans. Our criticism should target ideological beliefs about gender and the specific actions of individual activists — not trans people as a whole.
People on both the left and right tend to become emotionally invested in their beliefs and may find ingenious ways to rationalize them. Leftists are often highly skeptical of the right and of anything that challenges dominant left-wing narratives. This makes them more resistant to changing their minds on this issue. It can be a very disorienting experience — it was for me — to realize that the sources you’ve come to trust are wrong about trans issues and could therefore be wrong about other things, too.
It’s especially difficult to admit that you might have been wrong if you have already taken drastic and irreversible steps to medically transition yourself or to allow your child to medically transition or if you are a healthcare professional who has facilitated the medical transitions of your patients. That’s why it’s so important to approach this topic sensitively and refrain from catastrophizing. Detransitioners have frequently pointed this out, requesting not to be referred to as “mutilated” or “ruined” — descriptions that insinuate that they are damaged beyond repair.
Many people grappling with gender-related distress are in genuine pain. They are struggling to reconcile fundamental human needs of identity and belonging. They deserve our compassion and understanding, even as we critique the ideologies and practices that we believe are causing so much harm.
I am firmly convinced that those of us who are critical of trans ideology possess the best evidence and the most compelling arguments. We need to take the ethical high ground. Some socially conservative commentators seem primarily focused on gaining popularity by publicly dunking on their opponents. But genuine persuasion isn't about who can land the most devastating verbal blow. Civility and decorum are themselves conservative values, and we demean ourselves and our cause when we forsake them in favor of mudslinging.
Now, more than ever, we need open and constructive dialogue with people of different viewpoints, especially those from the left. If we want to convince people, we need to learn to communicate more effectively, and that means challenging beliefs without alienating people. We can do so only by making calm arguments supported by evidence from reputable sources. We're unlikely to see a dramatic shift in public opinion overnight, but each respectful interaction we foster brings us closer to achieving public awareness of these issues and ultimately, more informed and evidence-based policies.
Published Aug 3, 2023
