Activism, Culture Wars, Diversity, Diversity Debate, Feminism, Free Speech, Health, Identity, Language, Politics, Sex, Social Media, Top Stories, Women

At the NHS and BBC, Important Steps Toward Restoring Balance in the Gender Debate

In recent months, a sense has emerged that the tide might finally be starting to turn in the gender debate: Things that most everyone believes to be true, but that no one has been allowed to say, are now increasingly being said by writers, lawmakers, and litigants.

Certainly, the battle is still far from over. CNN is referring to women as “individuals with a cervix.” Last month, J.K. Rowling was trolled yet again for stating ordinary views about men and women (though thankfully, the media is no longer getting away with defaming her). And best-selling children’s author Gillian Phillip has been sacked by her publisher, Working Partners, because she added the hashtag #IStandWithJKRowling to her Twitter bio. But at least now, in mid-2020, these acts attract growing criticism. We are no longer in 2018, when the most militant gender activists could still pretend that they spoke for the entire LGBT community, with the “debate,” such as it then was, consisting mostly of endless mobbing campaigns against so-called “TERFs.”

One reason it has taken time to bring common sense back to the debate is that much of the media, and many NGOs, became deeply vested in gender ideology during the early and mid-2010s, at a time when most ordinary people simply weren’t paying much attention, or believed that the phenomenon was confined to academia. Websites such as Pink News relentlessly vilified anyone who suggested that biology had any role to play in determining who was a man and who was a woman. The American Civil Liberties Union turned its social-media feeds into an endless stream of trans-rights slogans and hand-clap emojis. Venerable groups such as Stonewall UK put their brand behind the most uncompromising demands of gender ideologues. A group called Mermaids demanded that aggressive transition therapies be provided to children who exhibited signs of dysphoria. All of this was done under cover of sunny, family-friendly PR campaigns that presented transition as a gateway to happiness.

Meanwhile, feminist critics of gender ideology often were isolated, marginalized, and dismissed as cranks. As early as 2012, sociologist Julia Long has noted, a feminist conference organized by radical feminists in London was cancelled due to the speakers’ allegedly “exclusionary” stance. And in time, scenes such as this convinced gender activists that they could harness the power of social media to mob “gender-critical” women at will—as with the call to sack Radio 4’s Jenni Murray, co-host of Woman’s Hour, after Murray penned a Sunday Times op-ed in support of Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, who’d noted that many self-described trans women grew up with all of the privileges associated with being male.

At around the same time, in April 2017, BBC presenter Samira Ahmed was trolled after she’d criticised a performing arts centre for a “gender-neutral” toilets policy that made life more difficult for women. Because activists used the language of violence, and even genocide, to describe any nod to biology, these campaigns encouraged the casual smearing of “TERF” women as being akin to gender Nazis—thereby legitimizing the most vile forms of Internet abuse. J.K. Rowling alone has endured countless death and rape threats, merely for saying that men are not women. And many gender-ideology dissenters have had to rely on judges and human-rights officials to protect their rights.

One lesson we’ve learned is that words matter—because when a slogan is repeated often enough, in the right sort of ideologically charged atmosphere, it can override even basic, easily observed principles of science. This is especially true when the slogans are signal-boosted by well-known groups and public figures: It becomes easy to gaslight your critics as crackpots.

That’s why it’s significant that the website of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS)—the umbrella group for the country’s publicly-funded healthcare systems—has removed the prominent, once-numerous references to Mermaids from its online materials. Mermaids is a charity that has long identified its constituency as “transgender children” and their parents, but which long ago focused on pushing for the most rapid possible transition of the highest possible number of children, with the fewest number of safeguards. As the notorious case of a seven-year-old boy who was removed from his mother’s care shows, there really seems to be no line the group won’t cross in this regard. (One particularly memorable Mermaids moment came when the organization promoted an article on transgender children supposedly written by two academics named Natacha Kennedy and Mark Hellen. It later turned out to have been written by a single person, who, bizarrely, then appeared under two different names on the Goldsmiths University of London website—one male, the other female, naturally.)

Look for any mention of Mermaids today on the NHS site, and you’re likely to find the pages are gone. The BBC, too, seems to have wiped away references to Mermaids from its list of “Gender Identity” “Information and Support” resources, which listed Mermaids prominently until last month. This has unfolded during the same period when the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation, which provides mental-health services to children, is facing a lawsuit from a former patient who says she was rushed into an aggressive, and ultimately destructive, program of hormone therapy. A former psychiatric nurse at Tavistock is making related legal claims, alleging the provision of drugs to children as young as nine. Numerous clinicians have resigned in protest at such policies. And it may be the case that lawyers at the BBC and NHS are simply seeking to protect their clients from legal exposure.

BBC Woman’s Hour has reported that much of the language on the NHS website referring to gender dysphoria was removed or entirely reworded last week, so as to more accurately reflect science instead of ideology. Crucially, the NHS no longer repeats the fiction that puberty blockers such as Lupron are “reversible,” since there are few studies on the physical or psychological effects. (It has been known since 2017 that trials of peripubertal GnRHa-treatment, i.e., hormone blockers, in sheep reveal “permanent changes in brain development [and] raises particular concerns about the cognitive changes associated with the prolonged use of GnRHa-treatment in children and adolescents.”) Also removed from the NHS site: Emotionally loaded references to suicide, which had previously served to terrify parents into seeking rapid treatment, lest any delay lead a child to end their lives. The association of “gender identity” with regressive stereotypes also is gone. And the website no longer suggests that sex itself can be changed. Instead, we get more accurate language to the effect that “some people may decide to have surgery to permanently alter body parts associated with their biological sex.” That the NHS now uses the term “biological sex” at all is itself a huge win, even if such language is obviously appropriate on the level of science and medicine.

The site’s section on hormones for teens has been revamped to reflect our knowledge that aggressive therapeutic protocols had been based on shoddy or non-existent studies. Where the previous text suggested that hormones “may improve how you feel and mean that you don’t need to start living in your preferred gender or have surgery,” this section now reads: “The NHS in England is currently reviewing the evidence on the use of cross-sex hormones by the Gender Identity Development Service.” The reference on SRS (sex reassignment surgery) has been revised to eliminate propaganda to the effect that “most trans women and men are happy with their new sex and feel comfortable with their gender identity.” Also removed is the notion that people are actually changing sex per se. Gone are the words, “Once you’ve completed your social gender role transition and you and your care team feels you’re ready, you may decide to have surgery to permanently alter your sex.” No one can permanently alter their sex.

Additional updates on the NHS website, listed under “Signs of gender dysphoria in children,” include a clarification of the science that reflects what psychologist Kenneth Zucker has long documented through his work on childhood desistance. Now the NHS site states: “Most children who seem confused about their gender identity when young will not continue to feel the same way beyond puberty.” And for adolescents, the site now reads: “If your feelings of gender dysphoria began in childhood, you may now have a much clearer sense of your gender identity and how you want to deal with it. However, you may also find out that the feelings you had at a younger age disappear over time and you feel at ease with your biological sex. Or you may find you identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.” (The same NHS website previously had made no reference to childhood desistance or sexuality.)

Such changes are having a knock-on effect in the media, which takes its cues from government resources. This week, a BBC insider tipped me to the fact that BBC Pride—the network for LBGT staff at the BBC—indicated this week that the BBC was removing Mermaids from its website due to “audience complaints.” These complaints come “against a backdrop of increasingly contested issues relating to trans issues and children,” BBC Pride explained. “It is a complex area and the BBC needs to remain impartial when signposting audiences to organizations that can offer appropriate advice.” Given the insistence of some progressives, including at least one Labour MP, that even debating these issues is an act of hate speech, the BBC’s indication that it should “remain impartial” counts as progress.

Outside the realm of institutional medicine and media channels, so-called gender-crits have learned to fight back using the same online tools that have been deployed against them—though they have been more inclined to use mockery and satire instead of the outright abuse that they themselves have long endured. When Toronto mayor John Tory recently tweeted about “menstruators,” women on Twitter reacted scathingly. (Unfortunately, this kind of language has become common. Since 2018, for instance, Cancer Research UK has publicised its cervical screenings like this: “Cervical screening is for people with a cervix.” Too bad for the 50 percent of women who don’t know what a cervix is, and who may well miss cervical screenings because a handful of activists want to see their self-defined identity read back to them in every imaginable public sphere.)

Public perceptions of this issue also have been influenced by shocking criminal cases, such as that of transgender prisoner Karen White, a biological man who was sentenced to life in a British prison for sexually assaulting and raping several prisoners while serving time for a previous crime. The government has responded to such incidents by creating a prison for male prisoners who identify as transgender, a solution that serves to indulge their conceit of womanhood but at least keeps them out of women’s prisons.

By far the most concrete British victory in the campaign against gender extremism was the recent announcement that long-discussed plans to reform the country’s Gender Recognition Act of 2004 have been scrapped, much to the dismay of activists who want the law changed so as to ensconce unfettered gender self-identification as the only permissible basis for distinguishing men from women. But in the battle for popular attention, symbols sometimes matter more than laws. Which brings us back to J.K. Rowling, who recently responded to an article describing women as “people who menstruate” by Tweeting, “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people.” The fierce onslaught she received has served as a wake-up call, even for those who have not been following the debate closely.

In a culture war, which side are you going to pick—the beloved children’s author tweeting common sense, or the angry mob demanding that women be defined in language according to their bodily discharge? It’s what some feminists now look back on as their “peak trans moment”—that instant when you realize that we are being gaslit by extremists who rely on hyperbolic language, pseudoscience, exaggerated suicide statistics, and social-media mob campaigns, all the while pretending to represent the forces of universal love and toleration.

My own peak trans moment came when reading an article by Julie Burchill in the Observer in 2013, in defence of Burchill’s colleague and friend, Suzanne Moore. Moore had been hounded from Twitter for writing an essay about women’s anger, in which she’d referenced the discontent women feel about “not having the ideal body shape—that of a Brazilian transsexual.” Burchill’s stylistically brilliant response hit a nerve. And I closely studied the callouts against both Moore and Burchill, which escalated into hysteria. Conversely, the silence from across the UK—from tenured academics and journalists alike—was deafening. The Observer pulled Burchill’s article (after which it was republished by Spiked), thereby demonstrating that activists would be rewarded, not criticized, for humiliating and silencing women whose opinions they disliked.

As with so many other things, the campaign for trans rights began with good intentions. For some people, dysphoria is very real—the feeling of being in the wrong body. It’s a problem that has to be managed, and people who suffer from this condition should get the help they need. But rather than urge that dysphoria be treated in a humane and realistic way, many activists prefer to cast it as a vestige of an invented inner spirit called “gender identity,” which universally suffuses us all, like a spark of the divine.

Such fantasies are the basis of religion, and it is fine for people to believe in them. But over the last decade, this particular fantasy has been encoded into law—which is very much not fine. And it was only a matter of time before ordinary people realized that a fraud had been perpetrated on them under cover of human rights. In Canada, this realization has unfolded largely in response to the farce surrounding Jessica Yaniv. In other cases, it has come in response to watching girls get blown off track courses by self-defined girls who once competed in the boys category. The counter-reaction to all this is underway everywhere, and the landscape is changing daily as a result.

Of course, it’s taken too long, and much damage has been done in the interim. But for the sake of the many women and children who remain at risk, better late than never.

 

 

Julian Vigo is a freelance writer, journalist, and filmmaker. Her latest book is Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography of Poverty and the Politics of Development (2015). She can be reached at Julian.Vigo@gmail.com. Follow her on Twitter @lubelluledotcom.

 

Comments

  1. Great article. As James Lindsay recently put it, why can’t we all just say that trans women are… trans women. On a more worrying note, I did find it somewhat unnerving to read that this sea change is happening through Government mandate- since when did we start meekly deferring to Government as some sort of Moral Authority. Sure, in this particular instance their leadership is welcome- but how long until some long-cherished freedom we’ve always taken for granted, is suddenly reclassified as verboten.

    We would do well to remember that in a well-informed Democracy, Government is supposed to enact the will of the people, and not the other way round. Of course, it’s only representative democracy, but only insofar as politicians find the will of the people unworkable or impractical. The Leader of the Free World is figurative, rather than literal title, after all. The Founding Fathers were quite clear in their intention to divide up power in such a way as to ensure that changes could only be made when the vast majority of the populace had reached consensus. The modern commentariat seem to think that having Congress gridlocked is some form of bug, when in fact it was a feature by design, from the very beginning.

  2. The article could have driven the point stronger by listing the organizations which lost official patronage from the NHS. The treatment web-page, barely months ago, recommended extremely dubious activist groups.

    There is patronage in partnerships, policy consultation privileges, policy outsourcing (shadow policy making). Then there is the equally pernicious financing of activist groups.

    Consider the “venerable” activist group mentioned in the article, Stonewall - their last financial statement was in 2018:

    In 2018, subtracting the 1 mn grant by the Monument Trust, government funding comprised 71% of Stonewall funding. This is the case with supposedly “respectable” organizations claiming “grassroots” support. The larger criticism is much of “activism” is the state lobbying itself.

    The IEA’s report on the extent of governmental lobbying in the UK (2012; thanks to @neoteny):

    It is worse. Government bureaucrats fund shadow bureaucracies, which in turn, push-pull governmental policy, making governmental functions ever more obscure, the funding ever greater.

    What is of concern is the de-listing of these organizations, isn’t accompanied by reasons. Neither is there any reasoning for how and why the Government patronizes which organization to what extent.

    The current medical advice:

    Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

    It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

    These hormone blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.

    Two paragraphs later:

    These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

    • breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)
    • breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)

    As the excerpt above demonstrates, sophistry aside, characteristic of NHS advisories is the lack of referencing. This included the page (now revised) referencing activist groups. These are documents which cannot be scrutinized. A similar problem with COVID-19 public engagement by governments. Citizens were invited to actively speculate.

    The article describes the welcome development of balance between rival interest-coalitions and governmental patronage. What remains unaltered is the government-citizen balance. That the positions of one of the interest-coalitions aligns partly with individual autonomy shouldn’t blind us to the larger picture.

  3. Finally, a ray of hope for dysphorics, who have been treated like some sort of cultural “lab rats” by all and sundry. A very sincere and compassionate MFCC, of no little experience, recently attempted to convince me that puberty blockers were merely some sort of “pause button” and should be used whenever uncertainty about outcomes for gender dysphorics exist. She was merely relating what the popular literature conveys. The narrative being sold to the non-prescribing therapeutic community has been accepted, largely without question; an example of empathy and sincerity being cynically used against those whose mandate is to develop trusting relationships.

    Thank you for the article.

  4. It’s enough to make a TFMer out of you. Andras, I surrender. Or maybe just a Trumpie.

    Or because bureaucracy is a weed who’s nature is to keep growing? I wonder how many students really want a vast DIE bureaucracy at their school? If offered a $20,000 reduction in their tuition at the expense of cancelling DIE, which would they really choose?

    Is it not breathtaking that real kids have had their lives ruined by these butchers, and that with only a murmur of objection? The whole edifice of ‘science’ and government and the chatterattii, was bent to the will of a tiny group of freaks who hardly had to do more than threaten people on Twitter to get their way. As with the election of Trump, there are times when I still can’t quite believe it. We thought we had a civilization built on granite foundations? Nope.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74YLwinLT7M

    Good Morning Ted.

  5. The change in the narrative should be attributed to those few doctors who’ve gallantly resisted the activist push through medical associations. They’ve upheld what it meant to be a doctor - that is the standard we’ve come down to.

    Here’s one such group. It’d be useful to list/reference articles explaining those who remained steadfastly objective.

  6. This article was excellent until the third to last paragraph, in which the writer dismisses gender identity as a kind of superstitious myth.

    But gender identity, far from being a myth, is actually based on evolutionary tenets, if we understand gender identity to mean those aspects of human psychology that differ between the sexes. These differences arise from the same source as other sexual differences- as a consequence of intrasexual competition for mates, and sexual selection of mates based on their attributes useful to the other gender. Women choose men for their ability to garner resources, while men choose females for their fecundity.

    The result is an evolutionary pressure that creates different psychologies as well as different bodies. The idea that evolution stops at the neck is one of the fallacies of extreme left wing belief. And if anyone doubts that this is true, he or she needs to learn about the David Reimer case, a young child born genetically male who was raised as a female after a botched circumcision. If the feminist notion that gender is a “social construct” were true, Reimer had no reason not to conform to his socially-constructed female identity.

    Instead, he rebelled against that construct, insisting that he was male from a very early age. More recent work in evolutionary psychology is providing growing evidence that men and women are different from birth, psychologically as well as physically, which explains why feminists are so dismissive of the science.

    But of course they have to be, because if they were forced to admit that men and women were the product not only of nurture, but of nature, then the scaffolding of feminist ideology would collapse underneath them.

    Some would argue that it already has.

  7. That sad part is that real long-term damage is being done to children based on woke pseudoscience. Growing we were had family friends that had children near my age. Of the three children, two, a boy and a girl, grew up to be gay. As kids we knew the boy was gay long before we know what gay meant or, for that matter, what sexuality meant. He was, in the parlance of eight-year-olds – a sissy. He would never play games with us. Instead he would actually sometimes play with his sister’s dolls!!! The story has a happy ending. He come out of the closet in his 30’s and has long been happily married to another guy. He is a well-adjusted gay male. But I wonder what would have happened today, had his well-meaning parents tried to turn him into a girl? I doubt he would be the happy person he is today.

    I wonder how many gays have had doubts about their sexuality as children and are now happy well-adjusted adults. I wonder if they would be as happy had their parents “transitioned” them.

  8. Fair enough.

    I was just talking about this last night with my 18 year old daughter. The idea that girls/women could never be abusive physically or psychologically. Although I tend to believe in females it’s more common to be psychologically abusive vs. physical. Males duke it out so to speak, females use psychological warfare.

    There is a lot of “girl on girl” crime that is seemingly rarely discussed. Same with the idea of motherhood and the myth that all women are loving and caring mothers who would never abandon, abuse or murder their offspring. That simply is not true.

  9. The entire area of trans “treatment” is complete bullshit.

    I spent my career as a medical researcher from 1989-2018. During this time, the mantra was “evidence-based medicine”. You did the treatment that was backed by the randomized clinical trial. If there was no trial, you would run one with NIH support.

    With trans or gender dysphoria:

    1. There are no tests to identify GD
    2. There is no research of the effect of hormone blockers
    3. People who have GD do not want to be in studies so finding subjects is extremely difficult
    4. Studies that do run have terribly high loss-to-followup rates - 50, 60%. Most studies that are considered good have LTF rates of 3,4,5%
    5. There is SJW bullying pressure put on people who do the research. Ken Zucker, a Canadian clinician mentioned in this article, was removed from his directorship of a GD clinic because his approach of “watchful waiting” was considered to damage children. He sued, and won $500,000.
    6. Many clinicians are very ambivalent about GD. I read an email group which is composed of sex researchers. There is a large range of opinion in those emails
    7. The social contagion known as ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) is a serious issue. Girls are removing their functioning breasts due to a social contagion
    8. I will be working in the next legislative session on a bill to eliminate trans women from girl’s sports. I expect that 5-6 states will have such bills.

    I think that we have hit peak “transanity”. Now it is the time to aggressively roll back the “trans coddling” rules.
    7

  10. I believe that it is not Mbp. It is something close, but different, in mothers of teens.

    When a male child comes to their mother and says that he is really a she, there is often an implied or explicit statement that “I am so unhappy that I will kill myself”. These threats are VERY SELDOM REALIZED. The suicide rate in GD kids is NOT hugely different from normal children.

    However, the parental reasoning is quite simple: “I’d rather be the mother of a live girl than a dead boy”. That sets the chain of events into action. The father must be convinced.

    I know a family that we used to socialize with in our last locale. The two boys were always a bit odd. I left when the oldest was 10 and the younger 8. In 2018, an announcement on FB indicated that the younger was now a she.

    We are UUs. We have a “tradition” (really a socially required attitude) of “radical acceptance of alternate sexuality.” This includes trans. So all the friends at our church in that former location all came out congratulating the new girl, saying how brave she was, how wonderful to make this key step. This was OF COURSE ALL WOMEN. Of the 30-40 who posted, there was maybe 1 man. This kind of “radical acceptance” has the effect of “locking in” the new perspective.

    Of recent, I haven’t seen much of their postings. My friends have gradually realized that I have become more conservative, and many have probably put me on “unfollow” status. But the terrible effect of this “radical acceptance” means that the teen and parents are locked in. If the kid reverts to his true bio sex, what then? Another cake? I think not. Mostly sheepish statements like “Oh, I tried to think about cutting off my dick, but decided not to”.

    So the real thing is the moms, and reluctant dads, are bullied into supporting this pathology. Another way to see it is “I’d rather be the parent of a special child than a child who is mentally ill”. That’s the choice - mental illness is the alternate explanation.

  11. Hi Ted. I have a little tale to tell.
    I was travelling in Thailand with my wife (then girlfriend). It was 7 years ago. We were leaving the mainland to travel to Phu (means Island) Quoc. We were disappointed as we’d arrived late and missed the final ferry to Phu Quoc. We’d have to spend the night in limbo. We came upon this unusual saloon type building that was at odds with its surroundings, but it was the jovial charisma of “Pui” the effervescent girl who stood at the swinging doors and attracted us to stay the night in her hotel.
    Pui was a stunning girl, and I quickly saw that her attention wasn’t focused upon us, but rather my unusually beautiful girlfriend. (Too lovely for me). It took a while, but during the conversation it became clear that Pui had mistaken Preeya as a ladyboy, just like herself. We were both drawn to this force of energy and delighted in her request that tonight we’d be her special guests.
    It was a birthday party. At first Preeya and I partook in this celebration casually, but after our dinner, were formally invited to join the main table. The only biological woman at that table was Preeya, but I was the only man. What I had observed from the onset was the remarkable English language of all there. It was awesome fun. Pui sat next to me and in between joking, laughing and entertaining her guests she’d fill me in on any confusions. she said that in Thailand you’d never encounter a miserable ladyboy, that they all had been through hell and back and once on the right side of heaven, all Earth can be moved. They would shock us with their stories of male encounters. These ladyboys loved the “Wow” and it was all met with screams of delight. Pui told me that “We are like homosexuals, but not male homosexuals; we are women.”
    That one sentence told me everything… Those girls just wanted to be accepted as women. I was told that there was no real point of outsiders either accepting or scorning us, as they’d never really understand; but rather we are just left alone to live our lives.
    You would never discern any mental issue at that table, except perhaps extreme extrovertedness. Perhaps you could intuit some quiet sadness in those two or three moments of the evening whilst a new conversation hadn’t quite started.
    I will never forget that night we missed the ferry to Phu Quoc, and Preeya and I did promise to return some day. Guess what, I bet they remember us too. How we laughed.
    I understand nothing of the psychology that misdirects ones natural sex, but I do understand that its not a point of issue. Its a problem when people politicize any oddballs in an attempt to subvert those that are happy being human Aren’t we all odd?

  12. I am not a trans supporter. That being said, if you want to cut off functional tissue and this satisfies you, I have no problem. Cut away!!

    i do have a problem when:

    • Trans women compete against actual women, because this is profoundly unfair
    • Trannies try to get confused kids to also become trannies. And there is a social coercion going on
    • Kids under 21 cut off stuff. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.
    • I am required to say “trans women are women”. Because they are not

    The trans thing is a complete confusion and perversion of nature. It is fine to believe whatever you want. It is not fine to force me to agree with your confusion.

  13. Male violence is measurable by the number of men in prison, but because female violence is emotional, it can be measured in shattered families and grieving fathers.

  14. I find it ironic that feminism and the trans movement now seem to be competing for the same space in the social justice realm. More than anything else, the trans movement grew out of the feminist essentialism and intersectionality debates that dragged on for the entire decade of the nineties in the form of academic papers and disagreement about basic concepts. Essentialism was their attempt to answer the question, “What, essentially, is a woman?” Intersectionality was about the issues faced by people who live in the intersection of two or more different oppressed social groups. Kimberle Crenshaw wrote one of the original articles on intersectionality, which was originally concerned with black women, but it now includes transgender people as well.

    Transgender rights has turned into a political issue for Democrats. There is this class of people who never even existed before and, for a political party, that present unlimited opportunities to sell new rights and legal protections in exchange for votes. But it was already starting to fail as a political issue in 2016 when Hillary ran her campaign almost exclusively on trans bathroom rights and lost to Trump, with 53% of white female voters voting for Trump.

    The Democrats need to drop the issue fast and start looking at liability for the bodies they’ve destroyed with surgeries and the minds they’ve destroyed with drugs and hormones. JK Rowling is right; we are on the brink of a medical scandal of enormous proportion. They also need to change quite a few laws back to something more ethical and sane. Cleansing the NHS website isn’t going to make the problem go away.

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle

100 more replies

Participants

Comments have moved to our forum