I'm living the nightmare of having a 20-something year old trans son (who believes himself to be a woman). The nightmare isn't so much his belief but rather his adamancy that I share it. And until I do, according to him, there's no point in having any discussions (especially since his one-way screeds directed at me didn't move the needle). In fact, according to him, there's no point in having any relationship at all. I told him that I'm fine using his preferred pronouns in his presence and that I do accept that this is what he believes but that I can't stop believing what I believe (namely, lopping off some parts—which he thankfully hasn't done yet—and adding others doesn't make you a woman). I'm heartbroken at having lost him (for now) and am furious at the ideological movement that has seemingly swallowed him whole, convincing him that his (diagnosed from an early age) gender dysphoria can be resolved by mutilating his body to such an extent that he's admitted he can no longer feel pleasure. And further, that that's somehow worth giving up in order to find his "true" self. I feel like he's joined a cult. I'm not sure if I had a point to make but it sure feels good to get it off my chest.
What bothers me the most, is the idea that because someone has decided they are not the thousand of years usual definition of male and female, is the idea that all of us - and I am 86 - should forget our own understanding of basic biology and bow to their demands or be excoriated. I lived in the Vllage in nyc many many years ago and there were drag queens and lesbian and gay people living their lives but i was never asked to call a him a her. People lived their lives privately which is as it should be.I will honor your choice if it fits you but don't attempt to drag me into your world and I won't drag you into mine.
Intimidation and coercion is part of the fun. Just as homosexuals never bragged, "We are coming for your children!" while trans activists do. All in guerilla theatre, of course, just in case someone talks about arresting them.
Dani, I am also a rejected mother, but by my sons who in adulthood started aligning with their "female-identified" father. You can find me at my channel and the method to contact me is always in the notes. Be strong and take care of yourself. I'm glad you wrote this.
I am impressed by the humanity of your response to the negativity you have received from some on "your own side" - you talk about how you understand and sympathize with them, and why the overreach may have pushed some into such reactivity, but make arguments for why that movement should not follow that "take no prisoners" approach, for both humane and functional reasons.
I think you are right that there are a large number of people who would "live and let live" if the forces pushing gender ideology were not so bent on conquest and domination.
We cannot let ourselves become mutated mirror-world clones of social justice warriors, rigorously policing against any hint of heresy within our ranks. Many of those who push back against critical social justice ideology today were first swayed by noticing how nasty the "side of love" was to any dissent. I don't want to see the same kind of nastiness push people away from the gender critical movement.
My worry is that you are making a special dispensation and indulgence for your friend that you wouldn’t have someone else make for his friend. Well, fair enough, I suppose. You are a private individual, not a public official. You can treat your own friends however you like because you know them. You don’t have to trust or even like other people’s friends.
Where this goes wrong is that a friend who gets you to use his fake pronouns generalizes this private indulgence from you to an entitlement in his own mind that everyone else should, too. Before you know it, the state passes laws that make it a civil rights violation to “misgender” someone. The idiot from San Francisco on TikTok who tries to bait restaurant waiters into misgendering him would then have an actual legal basis to commit lawfare against them.
One wonders if he’d be doing that despicable shtick if one of his friends had said, “Fred, get real. You’re not a she and you’re not a Ma’am. Don’t be a jerk.”
I fully agree. And also, this narcissist in SF is wasting time. He could go out on a hike or learn a hobby or work in a community garden somewhere. Gad Saad calls it suicidal empathy. When my former husband was pulling these stunts on me, I kept reacting with what I call pathological logic, constantly trying to reason with him, to explain how this made me feel, such as no, I'm not "sharing my sweaters." We have to recognize and acknowledge the unwell narcissism, the ritual manipulation and coercive control.
I agree with this in spirit, and in general. The challenge I find, though, is when those who promote gender ideology perceive that they are, in fact, protecting kids from "transphobia." It's even more challenging when, in specific circumstances, they are correct: say, in citing situations where kids/teens have been told that they aren't welcome in their own home when they "come out" as "trans." It can be sincerely and seriously argued that if a kid comes out as "trans" and is told they are not welcome in their own home, that this is "transphobia."
To put it a different way: what happens when both sides truly believe they are acting in the best interest of a child/youth?
The road to hell is paved in good intentions. It is also paved with people pursuing their own self-interest and having set a false moral facade to protect their own self interest.
Advocacy for children is different than is advocacy for adults. There is so much piss-poor parental/family situations... inadequate parenting if you will... that singling out this small cohort of gender/sex-confused kids as deserving a Western civilization global movement to "save" them from "harm" is clearly either completely disingenuous or otherwise pushed by adults also confused about gender and sex. I think it is also pushed by people that want a new NGO industry and also the medical industry is onboard for the cash.
Children are harmed by the mistakes of adults from the day they are born. This isn't anywhere near the top of the list of things we should fret about.
My observation is that kids drifting toward a trans identity are often kids that hit puberty and feel unattractive and unwanted. And because puberty and the flood of hormones causes a period of awkwardness and sexual awakening, it is common for kids to feel unattractive while also being confused about sexual identity. I certainly remember this in my teens. Social media has exacerbated this problem with kids.
For most people, the period is temporary.
Our rules for children need to be much more restricted that our rules for adults. We should set some boundaries and provide assistance for them to be happy enough within the boundaries. Let them dress how they feel best suits them and their believed identity. But absolutely zero medial services to change gender until they are the age of a consenting adult.
I agree with this. The adults I work alongside who promote gender ideology would fall in the camp of "adults also confused about gender and sex." They work in non-profits and have dedicated their careers to serving kids and youth, and certainly aren't in it for money, and generally aren't protecting their own self-interest (many of them take actions directly against their own self-interest because they hold this as a strong moral belief).
And I agree that the rules should be different for kids than adults, that medical transition for minors (or other forms of gender-affirming care) should be off the table. "Social transition" is the one that's really tricky. If it was restricted to "dress however you please, etc." then it would be fine. But even things like chest binders can come with harms. And when adults like myself support social transition so that we convey dignity and respect, we can also be, in some sense, participating in a lie and creating confusion.
At the very least, I have started to push back on some of the terminology. When my colleagues use words like "transphobia," I point out the broad way in which they use that term, the activist bent of that term, and the lack of utility it has in providing treatment (it is so non-specific and all-encompassing that it erases important nuance). I also push back against the term "trans" kids and promote the use of "trans-identified," citing the differences between sexual orientation and the concept of "gender identity," and encouraging people to think in developmental terms (i.e. identity as a process). It is strange that so many of these things that seem common sense to me have been thrown out due to the confusion created by gender ideology.
Eva, I am a fan and a paid subscriber to your substack (as well as to this one). But (you knew there was a "but" coming) this essay skirts (ha ha) the issue of whether your male friend who cosplays as a woman feels entitled to enter women-only spaces, such as public toilets. You don't discuss this aspect, and I wish you would have.
I add that Eva has no idea what he does to his close family. I collect the sole data in the world on trans widows and with 64 in my databank, it turns out that over 1/3 were physically assaulted and exactly 1/3 were sexually assaulted. A few assaults were reported to law enforcement, who consistently declined to charge crimes. Several women who gave me their stories said they live in fear of hearing he's hurt another woman who innocently got involved with him. Actually the one in London is afraid she'll hear that he's killed a girlfriend. That sounds like "demonizing" but it is the unvarnished truth.
Very well expressed. Bear in mind that people posting on social media often say things they would never say to someone in person, and there is plenty of hysteria to go around. A lot of it can simply be ignored. But if I may offer an opinion, I think the problem with the whole "trans" debate has been exacerbated by the over-use of the ridiculous terminology "LGBTQ...." followed by any number of other ridiculous categories that have nothing to do with the original pride movement and the battles fought and won by homosexuals. Putting a very diverse group of so-called "identities" into this one box has created many of the divisions we see. Yes, people have very different personalities and so what if some people choose (as adults) to present as the opposite sex? Yes, some of those people (mostly autogynephilic males) are invading women's spaces and creating havoc. But the whole thing is simplified by people acknowledging that they are still, in fact, male or female as they were originally, and once you accept that access to spaces already owned by the opposite sex (e.g., sex-specific awards, competitions, and sports) is out of bounds, then no-one really minds how they dress or present. When it comes to pronouns, I would treat people just as drag queens have traditionally asked to be referred to - when they are in drag, they are referred to as "she/her". When they take off the makeup, they go back to "he/him". If a transsexual is "misgendered" because they don't really pass as the other sex, they need to stop regarding this as a devastating transgression (like the trans-identified male who deliberately goes into restaurants and then posts videos of how offended he is by waiters calling him "sir"). Oh, and non-binary definitely isn't a thing. That's where I draw the line.
What about people who do say they switch back and forth through the course of a day, or who don't feel fully male or female? They call themselves non-binary, apparently sincerely. Why is that, in your eyes, any less "real" (to the person claiming to experience that) than someone who truly, again in your eyes, experiences being "trans"? Neither is an any objective observable sense real, any more than the person who believes he is a unicorn is real. So why validate trans but not non-binary? You did write that you would refer to trans people the same way you think male drag queens want to be referred to: "her" in make-up, "him" not in make-up. But this implies that trans people really do switch back and forth like drag queens do, in and out of make-up, yet you draw the line at non-binary.
I realize this is all political theatre of the absurd. None of it is real. The movement is just all about queering us. OK. Fine.
Thanks for your reply. I perhaps wasn't clear enough that I believe that the sex binary is real - everyone is either male or female, so you cannot possibly be "non-binary". You can perceive yourself as the opposite sex, however variable that may be, but you are still the sex you were at conception. That never changes. The pronoun issue is complex but can be managed, whereas allowing the opposite sex to take awards and spaces from the other cannot.
Good for you and I am sorry for the hate you receive. I am opposed to the trans phenomenon especially in regards to it being foisted upon young people. But I don't hate individual trans people, have met a few and they don't have the activist mentality, are just trying to find happiness. I don't hate them for that even if I think they've chosen a bad path. It's not about hating all trans people.
I think you are threading the needle here correctly, you can oppose the ideology but still treat people decently.
I swear that gender-critical people are sometimes the most Gestapo when it comes to pronouns. I get to set my own pronoun policy, and Eva Kurilova gets to set hers, and we can live side by side in relative peace. How nice!
I don't buy into gender ideology, but, in general, I am happy to use preferred pronouns, with a few exceptions. Similarly, I do not believe that humans can communicate with the dead, but I have joined in games of Ouija because they can be fun. If anyone thinks I align with the gender cult because I refer to Buck Angel as "he", that's just not my problem.
There are, in my opinion, as many good people who have transitioned (although having transitioned is indicative of having suffered some emotional and/or psychological wound, but otherwise is not indicative of much) as there are good people who have not transitioned, and as many bad people who have transitioned as bad people who have not. Just as there are as many good women as good men and bad women as bad men, as many good religious people as good non-religious people and bad religious people as bad non-religious people, and we can break that down by each religion, or each nationality or race or ethnicity. I have no hostility toward people who have transitioned or who want to transition but have not yet done so.
I do have hostility toward the notions of gender ideology that have caused and continue to cause so much harm to young, vulnerable individuals (including my own daughter) and to women's rights. I am angry with those who push those notions, although I don't think most of them are "evil." I do think the ideas are, in essence, evil, because they result in so much harm.
As to pronouns, you have a right to do what you want to do, especially with your friends, and I am not hostile that you are doing it. However, I don't think anyone should be pushed to use inaccurate pronouns for another person, and I am annoyed when I read something or hear a podcast in which someone knowingly uses inaccurate pronouns for the simple reason that this perpetuates the notions of gender ideology. It perpetuates the notion that a man who thinks he is a woman (or vice versa) actually is one. I feel the same about putting pronouns in one's emails.
On the other hand, when you use a certain pronoun in front of your friend (I assume this happens when third parties are around and you are referencing your friend to them in his presence), you may just be doing this because he likes hearing it, in the same way he may like wearing a dress (if he does), or make-up. Hopefully, you are not doing it because you believe he has transformed into a woman, and you are not doing it to help aid and abet a delusion - although I suppose that's your business. I agree with others that it would be best not to contribute to inaccurate notions by using pronouns you know to be inaccurate, but I would not crucify you for it!
As to being friends with him, what the heck is wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being friends with people who have transitioned, and anyone who thinks there is something wrong with that is being incredibly judgmental and prejudiced. We have to divorce our feelings toward a destructive movement from our feelings for people who have transitioned!
Eva, I will not use incorrect pronouns. I will not allow my ex husband to coerce and manipulate my thinking. I literally still feel guilt, 30 years later, that I could not pull him out of that rabbit hole. When you've got therapists who join in with a husband and pressure the wife to "try out" kink flavored sex role play and demonize her when she refuses, (yes, I withstood that) all you need to do is tell the truth about what was said and done to you, and someone says I "monstered" him. I know there is another way to deal with this angst of cross-sex ideation, because it is about the same as a drug-free method of recovery from PTSD. See this few seconds, of me telling how my sons were crushed and traumatized at ages 4 and 7, when their dad said he'd prefer not to have Father's Day, he's entitled to part of Mother's Day.
I sympathize with the hurt over the attacks you've endured, and I understand your frustration with the lack of understanding shown by both sides. The black & white thinking is not how we were raised. It puzzles me greatly that so many cannot separate dislike of a policy and dislike of a person who embraces that policy. And the Trans thing is so much worse. On the left, if you don't embrace every aspect of the current 'program' you must hate everyone who does. On the right, if you embrace any aspect of that same 'program', you have surrendered to the Woke. I'm encouraged that some sanity seems to be seeping into the dialog (what little dialog there is), but it is happening so slowly.
I understand your tolerance; I would do the same for someone I know and like. It has been the overrreach of certain TRA's, claiming they ARE the other sex, demanding entry into women's sports, restrooms, and even prisons that has caused this virulent backlash. We have lost a capacity for debate, disagreement, and finding middle ground. There must be an acknowledgement that sex is a biological and inescapable fact to begin that debate.
The whole gender ideology movement is extreme, can be annoying at the least and can be disruptive socially at the worst. I often wonder though what percentage of trans people are totally on board with the the tenets of gender ideology vs just want to live their life with no turmoil and live in peace.
I also look rather skeptically at people pronouncing that they would have a live and let live as long as gender ideology didn't exist. Maybe they really feel that way - as long as they are completely free to address a male that has transitioned he/him.
A lot of crowing about the "tide is turning". Gender ideology as it has been expressed in the last few years (I guess maybe the last several) may be poised to wane a bit, but from a technology standpoint (primarily medical) it's pretty well known now that a male may do more than just wear dress and a wig, and vice versa for a female (although women have been able to have a more masculine presentation for some time).
Children should not be subjected to medicalization. They also don't need to get indoctrinated, especially in prepubescence). But I hear a lot of kids should just be able to explore. I agree with that, but do people as a whole believe that? Girls can easily do the skateboarder look. But what about boys that want to present a little more fem?
If an adult transitions, their needs to be an understanding that there are going to be a couple of things that won't fly. Transwomen in female sports? No. Transwomen in a female locker room or rest room? No. But there needs to be space for them to go into. No one ever talks about that. And if that was made a public policy, would they be able to go in there without having jackasses hurling slurs at them as they went in or came out? I really doubt it - which is going to present a challenge for implementing such a policy. Transphobe demanding that they use the restroom that aligns with their sex, trans people that just want to live their life not wanting to be subject to harassment.
There are definitely two extreme camps on this. Going to make it nearly impossible to formulate a workable social contract to deal with this.
So pronouns? Not a big deal for me. I've actually never had a situation where (that I know of) I had to deal with it from the standpoint of confusion - although I'm 69, have been in most of the major cities in the US, and quite a few in Europe, so I would guess I've run into trans people and just didn't notice. Guess I have no functional transdar. But if things were organized as I outline above, and people weren't militant about it, why not just use the pronouns that appear to jive with what a person appears to be shooting for (although they/them is puzzling).
What is sad about the scenario you mention is that public acceptance of homosexuals and even transexuals was going up for some while - but the conquest of the "LGBTQIA+" movement by critical social justice ideology (or wokeness) has understandably alienated many. I know transexuals from many years ago who just wanted to live their lives peacefully, passing as well as they could, and not trying to make any trouble. The trans women did use a women's restroom, but caused no problems. They didn't try to enter women's sports.
The trans movement today has corrupted all that into a grievance machine, which seeks to queer the society whether it agrees or not. It's not seeking compromises to balance rights as peacefully as possible, but needs to dominate. I have never yet seen a trans activist accept any compromise whatsoever (some non-activist trans folks do compromise and care about other people's needs as well as their own, but once one become an activist for trans causes, no compromise is needed when you believe you have the moral high ground as an oppressed group).
It's not surprising that general acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ movement has turned a corner. A lot of ordinary sane gay and lesbian (and bi) folks are dismayed as well, feeling their movement was hijacked by extremists.
I will note that in the last survey I saw, public acceptance of same sex marriage was stable, remaining at the highest level yet but not going further. I think that (LGBTQ... losing support while same sex marriage not) is because the non-craze gay and lesbian folk who just want to be left alone and are not seeking to control the whole society, but want to fit into it as normal people, are still regarded differently than the radicals.
Some people here probably dislike Lesbian and Gay folks as well, but the gender critical movement is broader than just that, and many of us are drawing the line at childhood transition, males in women's sports, and invasion of other women's spaces - but still have no problem with allowing non-crazy adults live their lives without harassment.
One quick typo: second paragraph, you have written "denying their existence - which an accusation..." I believe this should be "which is an accusation..." Moving on:
Eva, I can't tell you how much I appreciate this article. In the space of ideas, the more digging I have done, the more opposed I am to gender ideology and critical social justice theories.
However, I work with kids/youth with disabilities. Not only does that mean that I work with some trans-identified kids/youth, it also means that many of my colleagues subscribe to gender ideology or are trans-identified themselves. To take a "hard" stance on this issue, particularly with regard to pronoun use, would be to deepen the divide between myself and those whom I serve, or those who serve alongside me and with whom I share the values and goals of trying to help and support marginalized or suffering individuals.
I know there are trans activists who subscribe to gender ideology who are malicious in their intent and vicious in their interactions with others. But most of the people whom I encounter (here in Alberta, like you) who subscribe to this ideology are well-intentioned people whom I believe are misguided. They just want to treat these kids/youth with dignity and respect, and want the best for them. To listen to these views, to have one's blind spots pointed out, to truly hold space for this reality and tension while disagreeing with the harmful ideas and practices... this is what requires real courage and maturity.
And in the long run, while pushing forward policies may accomplish some goals, the war against gender ideology will never be won until the divisive gap is breached and we bridge the ideological polarization and politicization of this issue. I really believe we can't view people whose views on this are different as the "enemy" or as "other."
I appreciate the stance you put forward in this article. With this, you are joined with people like Sasha Ayad, Stella O'Malley, and Helen Pluckrose (and many others) in truly navigating and holding space for the real complexity of this issue. Thank you.
I am so heartened to hear your voice of moderation. I have always taken a moderate path in responding to this topic. I hate the erasure of biological fact, I hate the promotion of this ideology in schools, I hate the gender identity cult, I hate being coerced to use people’s desired pronouns, and more. But I don’t hate trans people, and people with severe gender dysphoria need to be accommodated. And my understanding is that transition is the only known effective treatment for these cases. In short, I’m with you.
Why do they need to be accomodated? I completely disagree. I will tolerate them, with great reluctance. I will not use the wrong pronoun. I will not allow them in the wrong bathroom or shower if I have anything to say about it.
Terry: "I hate being coerced to use people's desire pronouns"
George: "I will not use the wrong pronoun"
I don't think you two are completely at odds. People may have different concepts of what they include under the label of "accommodation", in degree or type.
Pronouns seem to be off both of your lists. I'm not sure what accommodation Terry would accept that George would not, if any.
Within the broader gender critical movement, there will naturally be differences on such things. We can work with people who, for example, agree that denial of biology is a pernicious danger to a healthy society, even if (for another example) some of them for politeness sake will use pronouns and some will not.
The worst thing we could to is to split into conflicting factions each of which polices conformity to a party line.
I will sometimes use somebody's pronoun, but I don't try to make other gender critical people do so - nor try to force them not to. In the end, for me, that's not the core issue (tho I do understand why some feel it's very important).
I'm not saying either of you were doing that factionalizing, just trying to be mindful of a potential pitfall I've seen damage movements and make them less effective.
I even see that a number of former supporters of trans ideology peeling away from that movement in part because of its rigid party lines. I don't want to do the same thing.
Agreeing that people who make a sincere effort to blend in with people of the other sex can use the bathrooms of that sex. This would be a social norm, not legislated. K
Eliminating the need to declare one’s sex when not necessary. For example, passports and drivers licenses do not need sex markers. Instead, create a service whereby one could inquire about the sex of a particular individual for relevant purposes only (for example one could not obtain this information for most employment or housing purposes).
Re:pronouns. My ideal would be if the norm were to refer to everyone using gender neutral pronouns. Given that this will never happen, I think the speaker should use the pronouns they think best for the person they are talking about. But one should not use pronouns with the intention of causing discomfort for people. This should be a social norm, not something that is legislated.
I like your attempt to find workable compromises, and am engaging in trying to refine that process, rather than trying to dispute.
ID's tend to have height, weight, hair color, eye color (and sometimes race) as well as sex. Is there a functional reason for continuing to use the first four/five, but not the last one, as long term common human ways of identifying somebody via description? If we can dispense with the last one, why not omit all of them? (This is a friendly exploration of concept, not snarky)
I like your distinction between social norms (as in politeness) and legislation, so long as the social norms do not become coercive like cancelling. (Cancelling is largely a matter of asserting the somebody is outside the social norms and thus should be voluntarily shunned by right-thinking individuals and institutions)
Regarding gender neutral pronouns, I decided many decades ago (long before gender ideology was a thing) to use "they" when writing, in reference to a non-specific person (thus of unknown sex) - rather than "he", or "he/she" or "s/he", or "he or she", or "per", or "co" or "zie", etc. Like a manual might say "if the user wants to delete their last entry, they can click the left arrow button". I've done that for many years now, and it's rarely even noticed. This is the form of gender neutral "they" which goes back centuries, but it's different than the recent practice of using "they" for a single known person who claims to be neutral gender.
> "the speaker should use the pronouns they think best for the person they are talking about. But one should not use pronouns with the intention of cause discomfort for people".
Some would say they use pronouns with the intention of being accurately descriptive, not of intentionally causing discomfort. Others would say that it's wrong to do anything which results in a member of some victim class feeling discomfort, even if that was not the intent of the speaker ("impact trumps intention" is the diversity training phrase)
I see the latter approach as having the effect of giving the most easily offended person the power to control language, which results in ever more proclivity to claim offense in order to gain power. And some would counter that by merely claiming not to "intend to cause discomfort", one gets a free pass to say anything they want.
I don't think that fostering fragility and fostering robustness are symmetric alternatives in their social and personal impacts, so I give more weight to one of these positions than the other.
How do you parse the cases falling between "conscious intent to cause discomfort" and "resulting in actual or claimed discomfort"?
I'm living the nightmare of having a 20-something year old trans son (who believes himself to be a woman). The nightmare isn't so much his belief but rather his adamancy that I share it. And until I do, according to him, there's no point in having any discussions (especially since his one-way screeds directed at me didn't move the needle). In fact, according to him, there's no point in having any relationship at all. I told him that I'm fine using his preferred pronouns in his presence and that I do accept that this is what he believes but that I can't stop believing what I believe (namely, lopping off some parts—which he thankfully hasn't done yet—and adding others doesn't make you a woman). I'm heartbroken at having lost him (for now) and am furious at the ideological movement that has seemingly swallowed him whole, convincing him that his (diagnosed from an early age) gender dysphoria can be resolved by mutilating his body to such an extent that he's admitted he can no longer feel pleasure. And further, that that's somehow worth giving up in order to find his "true" self. I feel like he's joined a cult. I'm not sure if I had a point to make but it sure feels good to get it off my chest.
What bothers me the most, is the idea that because someone has decided they are not the thousand of years usual definition of male and female, is the idea that all of us - and I am 86 - should forget our own understanding of basic biology and bow to their demands or be excoriated. I lived in the Vllage in nyc many many years ago and there were drag queens and lesbian and gay people living their lives but i was never asked to call a him a her. People lived their lives privately which is as it should be.I will honor your choice if it fits you but don't attempt to drag me into your world and I won't drag you into mine.
Intimidation and coercion is part of the fun. Just as homosexuals never bragged, "We are coming for your children!" while trans activists do. All in guerilla theatre, of course, just in case someone talks about arresting them.
Actually, the Gay Men's Chorus of San Francisco sings a song "We are coming for your children".
https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2021/07/gay-mens-choir-performs-song-with-the-lyrics-were-coming-for-your-children/
Did you listen to end. It was about combating prejudice not anything else but unfortunately obviously open to misinterpretation.
Dani, I am also a rejected mother, but by my sons who in adulthood started aligning with their "female-identified" father. You can find me at my channel and the method to contact me is always in the notes. Be strong and take care of yourself. I'm glad you wrote this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i92ZiJJ5Q40
I completely agree with your nuanced views.
I am impressed by the humanity of your response to the negativity you have received from some on "your own side" - you talk about how you understand and sympathize with them, and why the overreach may have pushed some into such reactivity, but make arguments for why that movement should not follow that "take no prisoners" approach, for both humane and functional reasons.
I think you are right that there are a large number of people who would "live and let live" if the forces pushing gender ideology were not so bent on conquest and domination.
We cannot let ourselves become mutated mirror-world clones of social justice warriors, rigorously policing against any hint of heresy within our ranks. Many of those who push back against critical social justice ideology today were first swayed by noticing how nasty the "side of love" was to any dissent. I don't want to see the same kind of nastiness push people away from the gender critical movement.
My worry is that you are making a special dispensation and indulgence for your friend that you wouldn’t have someone else make for his friend. Well, fair enough, I suppose. You are a private individual, not a public official. You can treat your own friends however you like because you know them. You don’t have to trust or even like other people’s friends.
Where this goes wrong is that a friend who gets you to use his fake pronouns generalizes this private indulgence from you to an entitlement in his own mind that everyone else should, too. Before you know it, the state passes laws that make it a civil rights violation to “misgender” someone. The idiot from San Francisco on TikTok who tries to bait restaurant waiters into misgendering him would then have an actual legal basis to commit lawfare against them.
One wonders if he’d be doing that despicable shtick if one of his friends had said, “Fred, get real. You’re not a she and you’re not a Ma’am. Don’t be a jerk.”
I fully agree. And also, this narcissist in SF is wasting time. He could go out on a hike or learn a hobby or work in a community garden somewhere. Gad Saad calls it suicidal empathy. When my former husband was pulling these stunts on me, I kept reacting with what I call pathological logic, constantly trying to reason with him, to explain how this made me feel, such as no, I'm not "sharing my sweaters." We have to recognize and acknowledge the unwell narcissism, the ritual manipulation and coercive control.
I am against gender ideology, but that does not mean I hate people based on gender.
I am against trans ideology, but that does not mean I hate trans people.
I am against racial ideology, but that does not mean I hate people of different races.
I am against hateful ideologies, and yes, I do tend to hate people that promote them... especially when they target children.
I agree with this in spirit, and in general. The challenge I find, though, is when those who promote gender ideology perceive that they are, in fact, protecting kids from "transphobia." It's even more challenging when, in specific circumstances, they are correct: say, in citing situations where kids/teens have been told that they aren't welcome in their own home when they "come out" as "trans." It can be sincerely and seriously argued that if a kid comes out as "trans" and is told they are not welcome in their own home, that this is "transphobia."
To put it a different way: what happens when both sides truly believe they are acting in the best interest of a child/youth?
The road to hell is paved in good intentions. It is also paved with people pursuing their own self-interest and having set a false moral facade to protect their own self interest.
Advocacy for children is different than is advocacy for adults. There is so much piss-poor parental/family situations... inadequate parenting if you will... that singling out this small cohort of gender/sex-confused kids as deserving a Western civilization global movement to "save" them from "harm" is clearly either completely disingenuous or otherwise pushed by adults also confused about gender and sex. I think it is also pushed by people that want a new NGO industry and also the medical industry is onboard for the cash.
Children are harmed by the mistakes of adults from the day they are born. This isn't anywhere near the top of the list of things we should fret about.
My observation is that kids drifting toward a trans identity are often kids that hit puberty and feel unattractive and unwanted. And because puberty and the flood of hormones causes a period of awkwardness and sexual awakening, it is common for kids to feel unattractive while also being confused about sexual identity. I certainly remember this in my teens. Social media has exacerbated this problem with kids.
For most people, the period is temporary.
Our rules for children need to be much more restricted that our rules for adults. We should set some boundaries and provide assistance for them to be happy enough within the boundaries. Let them dress how they feel best suits them and their believed identity. But absolutely zero medial services to change gender until they are the age of a consenting adult.
I agree with this. The adults I work alongside who promote gender ideology would fall in the camp of "adults also confused about gender and sex." They work in non-profits and have dedicated their careers to serving kids and youth, and certainly aren't in it for money, and generally aren't protecting their own self-interest (many of them take actions directly against their own self-interest because they hold this as a strong moral belief).
And I agree that the rules should be different for kids than adults, that medical transition for minors (or other forms of gender-affirming care) should be off the table. "Social transition" is the one that's really tricky. If it was restricted to "dress however you please, etc." then it would be fine. But even things like chest binders can come with harms. And when adults like myself support social transition so that we convey dignity and respect, we can also be, in some sense, participating in a lie and creating confusion.
At the very least, I have started to push back on some of the terminology. When my colleagues use words like "transphobia," I point out the broad way in which they use that term, the activist bent of that term, and the lack of utility it has in providing treatment (it is so non-specific and all-encompassing that it erases important nuance). I also push back against the term "trans" kids and promote the use of "trans-identified," citing the differences between sexual orientation and the concept of "gender identity," and encouraging people to think in developmental terms (i.e. identity as a process). It is strange that so many of these things that seem common sense to me have been thrown out due to the confusion created by gender ideology.
Eva, I am a fan and a paid subscriber to your substack (as well as to this one). But (you knew there was a "but" coming) this essay skirts (ha ha) the issue of whether your male friend who cosplays as a woman feels entitled to enter women-only spaces, such as public toilets. You don't discuss this aspect, and I wish you would have.
I add that Eva has no idea what he does to his close family. I collect the sole data in the world on trans widows and with 64 in my databank, it turns out that over 1/3 were physically assaulted and exactly 1/3 were sexually assaulted. A few assaults were reported to law enforcement, who consistently declined to charge crimes. Several women who gave me their stories said they live in fear of hearing he's hurt another woman who innocently got involved with him. Actually the one in London is afraid she'll hear that he's killed a girlfriend. That sounds like "demonizing" but it is the unvarnished truth.
Very well expressed. Bear in mind that people posting on social media often say things they would never say to someone in person, and there is plenty of hysteria to go around. A lot of it can simply be ignored. But if I may offer an opinion, I think the problem with the whole "trans" debate has been exacerbated by the over-use of the ridiculous terminology "LGBTQ...." followed by any number of other ridiculous categories that have nothing to do with the original pride movement and the battles fought and won by homosexuals. Putting a very diverse group of so-called "identities" into this one box has created many of the divisions we see. Yes, people have very different personalities and so what if some people choose (as adults) to present as the opposite sex? Yes, some of those people (mostly autogynephilic males) are invading women's spaces and creating havoc. But the whole thing is simplified by people acknowledging that they are still, in fact, male or female as they were originally, and once you accept that access to spaces already owned by the opposite sex (e.g., sex-specific awards, competitions, and sports) is out of bounds, then no-one really minds how they dress or present. When it comes to pronouns, I would treat people just as drag queens have traditionally asked to be referred to - when they are in drag, they are referred to as "she/her". When they take off the makeup, they go back to "he/him". If a transsexual is "misgendered" because they don't really pass as the other sex, they need to stop regarding this as a devastating transgression (like the trans-identified male who deliberately goes into restaurants and then posts videos of how offended he is by waiters calling him "sir"). Oh, and non-binary definitely isn't a thing. That's where I draw the line.
What about people who do say they switch back and forth through the course of a day, or who don't feel fully male or female? They call themselves non-binary, apparently sincerely. Why is that, in your eyes, any less "real" (to the person claiming to experience that) than someone who truly, again in your eyes, experiences being "trans"? Neither is an any objective observable sense real, any more than the person who believes he is a unicorn is real. So why validate trans but not non-binary? You did write that you would refer to trans people the same way you think male drag queens want to be referred to: "her" in make-up, "him" not in make-up. But this implies that trans people really do switch back and forth like drag queens do, in and out of make-up, yet you draw the line at non-binary.
I realize this is all political theatre of the absurd. None of it is real. The movement is just all about queering us. OK. Fine.
Thanks for your reply. I perhaps wasn't clear enough that I believe that the sex binary is real - everyone is either male or female, so you cannot possibly be "non-binary". You can perceive yourself as the opposite sex, however variable that may be, but you are still the sex you were at conception. That never changes. The pronoun issue is complex but can be managed, whereas allowing the opposite sex to take awards and spaces from the other cannot.
Good for you and I am sorry for the hate you receive. I am opposed to the trans phenomenon especially in regards to it being foisted upon young people. But I don't hate individual trans people, have met a few and they don't have the activist mentality, are just trying to find happiness. I don't hate them for that even if I think they've chosen a bad path. It's not about hating all trans people.
I think you are threading the needle here correctly, you can oppose the ideology but still treat people decently.
I swear that gender-critical people are sometimes the most Gestapo when it comes to pronouns. I get to set my own pronoun policy, and Eva Kurilova gets to set hers, and we can live side by side in relative peace. How nice!
I don't buy into gender ideology, but, in general, I am happy to use preferred pronouns, with a few exceptions. Similarly, I do not believe that humans can communicate with the dead, but I have joined in games of Ouija because they can be fun. If anyone thinks I align with the gender cult because I refer to Buck Angel as "he", that's just not my problem.
There are, in my opinion, as many good people who have transitioned (although having transitioned is indicative of having suffered some emotional and/or psychological wound, but otherwise is not indicative of much) as there are good people who have not transitioned, and as many bad people who have transitioned as bad people who have not. Just as there are as many good women as good men and bad women as bad men, as many good religious people as good non-religious people and bad religious people as bad non-religious people, and we can break that down by each religion, or each nationality or race or ethnicity. I have no hostility toward people who have transitioned or who want to transition but have not yet done so.
I do have hostility toward the notions of gender ideology that have caused and continue to cause so much harm to young, vulnerable individuals (including my own daughter) and to women's rights. I am angry with those who push those notions, although I don't think most of them are "evil." I do think the ideas are, in essence, evil, because they result in so much harm.
As to pronouns, you have a right to do what you want to do, especially with your friends, and I am not hostile that you are doing it. However, I don't think anyone should be pushed to use inaccurate pronouns for another person, and I am annoyed when I read something or hear a podcast in which someone knowingly uses inaccurate pronouns for the simple reason that this perpetuates the notions of gender ideology. It perpetuates the notion that a man who thinks he is a woman (or vice versa) actually is one. I feel the same about putting pronouns in one's emails.
On the other hand, when you use a certain pronoun in front of your friend (I assume this happens when third parties are around and you are referencing your friend to them in his presence), you may just be doing this because he likes hearing it, in the same way he may like wearing a dress (if he does), or make-up. Hopefully, you are not doing it because you believe he has transformed into a woman, and you are not doing it to help aid and abet a delusion - although I suppose that's your business. I agree with others that it would be best not to contribute to inaccurate notions by using pronouns you know to be inaccurate, but I would not crucify you for it!
As to being friends with him, what the heck is wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being friends with people who have transitioned, and anyone who thinks there is something wrong with that is being incredibly judgmental and prejudiced. We have to divorce our feelings toward a destructive movement from our feelings for people who have transitioned!
Eva, I will not use incorrect pronouns. I will not allow my ex husband to coerce and manipulate my thinking. I literally still feel guilt, 30 years later, that I could not pull him out of that rabbit hole. When you've got therapists who join in with a husband and pressure the wife to "try out" kink flavored sex role play and demonize her when she refuses, (yes, I withstood that) all you need to do is tell the truth about what was said and done to you, and someone says I "monstered" him. I know there is another way to deal with this angst of cross-sex ideation, because it is about the same as a drug-free method of recovery from PTSD. See this few seconds, of me telling how my sons were crushed and traumatized at ages 4 and 7, when their dad said he'd prefer not to have Father's Day, he's entitled to part of Mother's Day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i92ZiJJ5Q40
I sympathize with the hurt over the attacks you've endured, and I understand your frustration with the lack of understanding shown by both sides. The black & white thinking is not how we were raised. It puzzles me greatly that so many cannot separate dislike of a policy and dislike of a person who embraces that policy. And the Trans thing is so much worse. On the left, if you don't embrace every aspect of the current 'program' you must hate everyone who does. On the right, if you embrace any aspect of that same 'program', you have surrendered to the Woke. I'm encouraged that some sanity seems to be seeping into the dialog (what little dialog there is), but it is happening so slowly.
I understand your tolerance; I would do the same for someone I know and like. It has been the overrreach of certain TRA's, claiming they ARE the other sex, demanding entry into women's sports, restrooms, and even prisons that has caused this virulent backlash. We have lost a capacity for debate, disagreement, and finding middle ground. There must be an acknowledgement that sex is a biological and inescapable fact to begin that debate.
Good luck on trying to thread this needle.
The whole gender ideology movement is extreme, can be annoying at the least and can be disruptive socially at the worst. I often wonder though what percentage of trans people are totally on board with the the tenets of gender ideology vs just want to live their life with no turmoil and live in peace.
I also look rather skeptically at people pronouncing that they would have a live and let live as long as gender ideology didn't exist. Maybe they really feel that way - as long as they are completely free to address a male that has transitioned he/him.
A lot of crowing about the "tide is turning". Gender ideology as it has been expressed in the last few years (I guess maybe the last several) may be poised to wane a bit, but from a technology standpoint (primarily medical) it's pretty well known now that a male may do more than just wear dress and a wig, and vice versa for a female (although women have been able to have a more masculine presentation for some time).
Children should not be subjected to medicalization. They also don't need to get indoctrinated, especially in prepubescence). But I hear a lot of kids should just be able to explore. I agree with that, but do people as a whole believe that? Girls can easily do the skateboarder look. But what about boys that want to present a little more fem?
If an adult transitions, their needs to be an understanding that there are going to be a couple of things that won't fly. Transwomen in female sports? No. Transwomen in a female locker room or rest room? No. But there needs to be space for them to go into. No one ever talks about that. And if that was made a public policy, would they be able to go in there without having jackasses hurling slurs at them as they went in or came out? I really doubt it - which is going to present a challenge for implementing such a policy. Transphobe demanding that they use the restroom that aligns with their sex, trans people that just want to live their life not wanting to be subject to harassment.
There are definitely two extreme camps on this. Going to make it nearly impossible to formulate a workable social contract to deal with this.
So pronouns? Not a big deal for me. I've actually never had a situation where (that I know of) I had to deal with it from the standpoint of confusion - although I'm 69, have been in most of the major cities in the US, and quite a few in Europe, so I would guess I've run into trans people and just didn't notice. Guess I have no functional transdar. But if things were organized as I outline above, and people weren't militant about it, why not just use the pronouns that appear to jive with what a person appears to be shooting for (although they/them is puzzling).
What is sad about the scenario you mention is that public acceptance of homosexuals and even transexuals was going up for some while - but the conquest of the "LGBTQIA+" movement by critical social justice ideology (or wokeness) has understandably alienated many. I know transexuals from many years ago who just wanted to live their lives peacefully, passing as well as they could, and not trying to make any trouble. The trans women did use a women's restroom, but caused no problems. They didn't try to enter women's sports.
The trans movement today has corrupted all that into a grievance machine, which seeks to queer the society whether it agrees or not. It's not seeking compromises to balance rights as peacefully as possible, but needs to dominate. I have never yet seen a trans activist accept any compromise whatsoever (some non-activist trans folks do compromise and care about other people's needs as well as their own, but once one become an activist for trans causes, no compromise is needed when you believe you have the moral high ground as an oppressed group).
It's not surprising that general acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ movement has turned a corner. A lot of ordinary sane gay and lesbian (and bi) folks are dismayed as well, feeling their movement was hijacked by extremists.
I will note that in the last survey I saw, public acceptance of same sex marriage was stable, remaining at the highest level yet but not going further. I think that (LGBTQ... losing support while same sex marriage not) is because the non-craze gay and lesbian folk who just want to be left alone and are not seeking to control the whole society, but want to fit into it as normal people, are still regarded differently than the radicals.
Some people here probably dislike Lesbian and Gay folks as well, but the gender critical movement is broader than just that, and many of us are drawing the line at childhood transition, males in women's sports, and invasion of other women's spaces - but still have no problem with allowing non-crazy adults live their lives without harassment.
What are "trans" people? I have yet to hear a coherent definition.
One quick typo: second paragraph, you have written "denying their existence - which an accusation..." I believe this should be "which is an accusation..." Moving on:
Eva, I can't tell you how much I appreciate this article. In the space of ideas, the more digging I have done, the more opposed I am to gender ideology and critical social justice theories.
However, I work with kids/youth with disabilities. Not only does that mean that I work with some trans-identified kids/youth, it also means that many of my colleagues subscribe to gender ideology or are trans-identified themselves. To take a "hard" stance on this issue, particularly with regard to pronoun use, would be to deepen the divide between myself and those whom I serve, or those who serve alongside me and with whom I share the values and goals of trying to help and support marginalized or suffering individuals.
I know there are trans activists who subscribe to gender ideology who are malicious in their intent and vicious in their interactions with others. But most of the people whom I encounter (here in Alberta, like you) who subscribe to this ideology are well-intentioned people whom I believe are misguided. They just want to treat these kids/youth with dignity and respect, and want the best for them. To listen to these views, to have one's blind spots pointed out, to truly hold space for this reality and tension while disagreeing with the harmful ideas and practices... this is what requires real courage and maturity.
And in the long run, while pushing forward policies may accomplish some goals, the war against gender ideology will never be won until the divisive gap is breached and we bridge the ideological polarization and politicization of this issue. I really believe we can't view people whose views on this are different as the "enemy" or as "other."
I appreciate the stance you put forward in this article. With this, you are joined with people like Sasha Ayad, Stella O'Malley, and Helen Pluckrose (and many others) in truly navigating and holding space for the real complexity of this issue. Thank you.
I am so heartened to hear your voice of moderation. I have always taken a moderate path in responding to this topic. I hate the erasure of biological fact, I hate the promotion of this ideology in schools, I hate the gender identity cult, I hate being coerced to use people’s desired pronouns, and more. But I don’t hate trans people, and people with severe gender dysphoria need to be accommodated. And my understanding is that transition is the only known effective treatment for these cases. In short, I’m with you.
Why do they need to be accomodated? I completely disagree. I will tolerate them, with great reluctance. I will not use the wrong pronoun. I will not allow them in the wrong bathroom or shower if I have anything to say about it.
Terry: "I hate being coerced to use people's desire pronouns"
George: "I will not use the wrong pronoun"
I don't think you two are completely at odds. People may have different concepts of what they include under the label of "accommodation", in degree or type.
Pronouns seem to be off both of your lists. I'm not sure what accommodation Terry would accept that George would not, if any.
Within the broader gender critical movement, there will naturally be differences on such things. We can work with people who, for example, agree that denial of biology is a pernicious danger to a healthy society, even if (for another example) some of them for politeness sake will use pronouns and some will not.
The worst thing we could to is to split into conflicting factions each of which polices conformity to a party line.
I will sometimes use somebody's pronoun, but I don't try to make other gender critical people do so - nor try to force them not to. In the end, for me, that's not the core issue (tho I do understand why some feel it's very important).
I'm not saying either of you were doing that factionalizing, just trying to be mindful of a potential pitfall I've seen damage movements and make them less effective.
I even see that a number of former supporters of trans ideology peeling away from that movement in part because of its rigid party lines. I don't want to do the same thing.
Accommodation I am in favor of:
Agreeing that people who make a sincere effort to blend in with people of the other sex can use the bathrooms of that sex. This would be a social norm, not legislated. K
Eliminating the need to declare one’s sex when not necessary. For example, passports and drivers licenses do not need sex markers. Instead, create a service whereby one could inquire about the sex of a particular individual for relevant purposes only (for example one could not obtain this information for most employment or housing purposes).
Re:pronouns. My ideal would be if the norm were to refer to everyone using gender neutral pronouns. Given that this will never happen, I think the speaker should use the pronouns they think best for the person they are talking about. But one should not use pronouns with the intention of causing discomfort for people. This should be a social norm, not something that is legislated.
I like your attempt to find workable compromises, and am engaging in trying to refine that process, rather than trying to dispute.
ID's tend to have height, weight, hair color, eye color (and sometimes race) as well as sex. Is there a functional reason for continuing to use the first four/five, but not the last one, as long term common human ways of identifying somebody via description? If we can dispense with the last one, why not omit all of them? (This is a friendly exploration of concept, not snarky)
I like your distinction between social norms (as in politeness) and legislation, so long as the social norms do not become coercive like cancelling. (Cancelling is largely a matter of asserting the somebody is outside the social norms and thus should be voluntarily shunned by right-thinking individuals and institutions)
Regarding gender neutral pronouns, I decided many decades ago (long before gender ideology was a thing) to use "they" when writing, in reference to a non-specific person (thus of unknown sex) - rather than "he", or "he/she" or "s/he", or "he or she", or "per", or "co" or "zie", etc. Like a manual might say "if the user wants to delete their last entry, they can click the left arrow button". I've done that for many years now, and it's rarely even noticed. This is the form of gender neutral "they" which goes back centuries, but it's different than the recent practice of using "they" for a single known person who claims to be neutral gender.
> "the speaker should use the pronouns they think best for the person they are talking about. But one should not use pronouns with the intention of cause discomfort for people".
Some would say they use pronouns with the intention of being accurately descriptive, not of intentionally causing discomfort. Others would say that it's wrong to do anything which results in a member of some victim class feeling discomfort, even if that was not the intent of the speaker ("impact trumps intention" is the diversity training phrase)
I see the latter approach as having the effect of giving the most easily offended person the power to control language, which results in ever more proclivity to claim offense in order to gain power. And some would counter that by merely claiming not to "intend to cause discomfort", one gets a free pass to say anything they want.
I don't think that fostering fragility and fostering robustness are symmetric alternatives in their social and personal impacts, so I give more weight to one of these positions than the other.
How do you parse the cases falling between "conscious intent to cause discomfort" and "resulting in actual or claimed discomfort"?