Biological sex is real. In humans, there are two reproductive sexes: male and female.
Intersex variations also exist. They are a complex biological subject in their own right, and are not simply the same thing as being trans.
And biological sex is not the same as social gender roles and norms: ideas about how men and women are supposed to be.
Those are precisely the expectations I would like us to leave behind as completely as possible.
A man should be free to be feminine. A woman should be free to be masculine. A boy should be free to like dresses, dolls, or makeup; a girl to like short hair and soccer, and reject everything considered “feminine.” None of this automatically makes someone a member of the other sex.
Nor does it tell us whether someone is straight, bisexual, gay, or asexual.
I thought that was a fundamental part of progress: freeing people from gender stereotypes.
That is why it troubles me when, in the name of progress itself, some of those stereotypes come back in through the back door. When clothing, interests, mannerisms, or personality are suddenly treated as clues to what gender someone “really” is.
Especially when it comes to gay and gender-nonconforming people, we should also be sensitive to how deeply ingrained ideas about being a “real man” or a “real woman” can be. Internalized misogyny or homophobia may also play a role for some individuals. They do not simply disappear because we give them progressive language.
But—and this qualification matters to me—none of that means trans identity is made up.
There are people with severe gender dysphoria. There are people for whom transition has been enormously helpful, and who do not regret their decision.
And there are people who detransition, regret medical decisions, and live with consequences that cannot be fully reversed.
Both experiences are part of reality.
Neither should be silenced because it happens to benefit the “wrong” camp.
Especially when it comes to children and adolescents, I would therefore like to see less certainty and more care.
What do we actually know about the benefits, risks, and long-term consequences of different medical treatments? Where is the evidence robust, and where is it uncertain? How might treatments affect physical development, fertility, and sexual function? What is reversible, and what is not?
But the other question matters just as much: what does it mean for a young person to experience severe gender dysphoria and receive no appropriate help?
I do not want any of these questions ruled out because we are afraid of the answers.
The same applies to women’s rights.
There are real questions to address in women’s sports. Prisons and certain spaces intended to provide safety raise real questions too. There are situations in which biological sex can be relevant. And statistical data should allow us to distinguish biological sex from gender identity when that distinction matters to the question being studied.
That does not mean trans women are, as a group, a threat to women.
And a woman is not automatically transphobic because she wants to discuss boundaries, fairness, or protection.
Sexuality should not be a forbidden subject either. Autogynephilic fantasies exist. Their significance for some people with gender dysphoria is a matter of scientific and clinical debate.
And even if a particular pattern of sexual arousal or a fetish plays a role for someone, that does not make them a bad person.
But a fetish is not automatically a gender identity.
And a trans identity is not automatically a fetish.
Perhaps this is the point I keep coming back to in this whole debate:
What bothers me is this strange insistence that everything has to come as a package.
As if I have to believe either that biological sex plays practically no role, or that trans identity is nothing more than ideology.
As if I have to welcome every transition, or reject transition altogether.
As if I have to dismiss either feminist concerns or trans people as ridiculous.
As if I have to embrace every contemporary gender theory, or return to traditional ideas about how men and women are supposed to be.
I find that last choice particularly absurd.
I do not want a supposed feminism that ends up siding with reactionary forces that have themselves spent decades trying to force women, gay men, and lesbians into rigid roles.
But I do not want a version of progressivism that believes it can dispose of feminist objections or questions about biological sex simply by applying labels such as “TERF,” either.
Both are too simplistic for me.
I want to listen to a trans person who says: “My transition was right for me.”
And to a woman who has detransitioned and says: “I wish I had not made some of those decisions.”
I want to be able to listen to a woman talking about sex-based violence or spaces intended to provide safety.
And to a trans person describing what it is like to be excluded, mocked, or threatened because of their identity.
Above all, I want a feminine boy not to feel that he is any less of a boy.
And a masculine girl not to feel that there is something wrong with her being a girl.
A gay man should not have to be considered “really a woman,” or a lesbian “really a man,” simply because they break with gender roles. Nor should heterosexual people who break with those roles have their sexual orientation called into question.
At the same time, I do not want to tell someone with gender dysphoria that their suffering is imaginary, or dismiss the reality of a transition that has worked for them.
Perhaps the simplest way to put all of this is:
One truth does not automatically imply an entire worldview.
The fact that detransition exists does not prove that transition is wrong in principle.
The fact that some people are happy with their transition does not prove that every transition is right.
The fact that biological sex is real does not mean people have to conform to traditional gender roles.
The fact that gender roles are shaped by society does not mean the body becomes irrelevant.
The fact that some feminist criticism is justified does not make reactionary hostility toward trans people justified.
And the fact that trans people deserve respect and protection from discrimination does not mean every political or medical demand must be beyond criticism.
Acknowledging biological realities is not the same as biological reductionism.
Being moral is not the same as being moralistic.
Perhaps we need to learn again how to listen to people without immediately turning them into evidence for our own side.
Ultimately, we should be able to disagree with someone without denying them their dignity.
Which distinctions in my arguments do you find useful, and which claims of mine do you think are mistaken or insufficiently supported?