Jenny McCartney article, as linked above:
The announcement by President Donald Trump of a ban on transgender people serving in the US military bore all his grim hallmarks. The policy was decreed on Twitter, sloppily and without warning. It was defiantly careless of the feelings of a minority group. Worst of all, it was conceived without the prior agreement of the organisation it affected most, the US military.
Casual dismissal is a routine hazard that trans people face, along with stupid remarks from strangers, sniggers and whispers. At worst, this hostility manifests itself in violence or even murder. Trans people have high rates of attempted suicide, particularly among young adults. “Gender reassignment” treatment involves hormone treatment and often radical surgery, and while many feel transformed for the better by it, several have spoken searingly of post-op regret.
In the past, individuals have usually pursued such a course only if they felt that their biology and feelings towards gender were unbearably at odds. To change gender legally in the UK one must at present be 18 or over, have “gender dysphoria” medically diagnosed, live in the acquired gender for two years, and intend to stay in it for the rest of one’s life.
Yet if Trump and his ilk are wilfully nasty on trans issues, an alternative form of madness is unfolding among those who think of themselves as supremely tolerant. Justine Greening, the equalities minister, has proposed that adults be able to alter their legal gender without a medical diagnosis or two-year transition period. Furthermore, those “non-binary” people who regard themselves as neither male nor female could identify as “X”.
The idea is that anyone who wishes to “transition” will simply “self-identify” as their preferred gender: Barry can legally move to Betty with a signature, and vice versa, or to a category that allows them, ze, sie, hir — pick your pronoun — to float between the two.
The old view accepted that although for most people biological sex and gender were in harmony, for a small minority the two were in direct opposition, causing great distress.
The new view seeks to sever any assumed link between biology and gender at all. What self-identification means, in effect, is that if you were born biologically a male but “identify” as female, the law is obliged under Greening’s proposals to regard you as the latter with no further social test of sincerity. Your gender is now legally located within the mind, and you are the sole arbiter of how strongly you feel. Theoretically, you could remain in possession of a beard, a basso profondo and a fully working penis while vigorously demanding to be regarded legally as a woman.
Why? Because identity trumps biology. The same principle is evident in the insistence that “men can menstruate too” and the advice from the British Medical Association that the phrase “expectant mothers” should be abandoned in favour of “pregnant people” lest it exclude trans-men with an occupied womb.
Some welcome this “deconstruction of gender”. Others, such as certain radical feminists and social conservatives, are outspoken in their opposition. I would guess most people find it deeply confusing. Indeed, the trans lobby often seems more politicised than many ordinary trans people, who simply wish to get on with their lives in an atmosphere of courtesy. Yet these demands have been accepted by politicians as an automatic good without any debate about the pitfalls.
If identity is a moveable feast that exists purely in self-perception, why is society receptive to those who wish to travel between genders, but not races? Take the case of Rachel Dolezal, who was born white to white parents, but — after changing her appearance — passed herself off as a black activist. When this was discovered she was widely pilloried. Undaunted, she now calls herself Nkechi Amare Diallo and has recently been on a tour of South Africa describing herself as “trans-black”. Her argument has not gained traction among liberals.
Sexual biology, however, is not irrelevant. Those who are biologically male tend to be physically stronger and with the means and capacity to attack or rape women, should they wish to do so. It would be naive to assume that everyone will “self-define” with the purest of intentions, nor is it prejudiced to raise concerns with regard to biological men in all-female areas such as changing rooms.
If we acknowledge that feelings about gender are naturally more fluid in our early years, should society be pushing teenagers to alter their bodies with puberty-blocking “gender reassignment” treatment? Why not seek to broaden our communal vision of what it can mean to be a man or woman? In sport, a competitor with male biology and a legal female identity will have a strong advantage over a biological female — but what will the rules say about their participation? These are complex questions, and it seems curious that, among our political class at least, they are not being broached. Yet pretending controversy doesn’t exist, I fear, won’t act to defuse it.
@mccartney_jenny
I think I got all of it - there are so many bloody ads to navigate.