More on transgender transitioning of minors

 By Mathew Goldstein

Too often a policy topic becomes politically polarized. There are sometimes activists representing only two sides. Is our role to align our perspective with one side, the good side that is ethical and true, against the other side, the bad side that is bigoted and false? Is compromise naive weakness, a sell-out, a collaboration with the enemy? What if both sides are to some extent wrong? What if both sides are to some extent right? What if we are oversimplifying and failing to consider all of the relevant available information in part because we are listening only to one sided arguments from biased partisans? Could we ever be wrong about anything? Do we even care if we are right or wrong or is the priority always to loyally represent one side against the other side? Could we adopt an ethically upright perspective that combines some elements from more than one side with integrity? Is that even possible? 

If we accept that we have a responsibility to try to understand the relevant issues surrounding policy options before advocating for a particular policy, and that prioritizing being loyal partisan warriors for one side is not the ethical or rational approach to reaching policy decisions, then we should accept the need to allow evidence anchored discussions from different viewpoints.

Alex Byrne is a professor of philosophy at MIT.  I encourage everyone to read the following article, published June 26 in the Washington Post. I co-wrote the anonymous HHS report on pediatric gender medicine. Note his criticisms of the narrow intolerance of some activists who exhibit either an unwillingness or an inability to objectively deal with relevant evidence in its entirety. The arrogant, slandering, cherry-picking, partisan loyalty excused and justified, ideology driven, self-righteous, censorious, circular, authoritarian bullying is a substantial problem. And no, this is not a problem found exclusively on the right, it is very much a problem on both the left and right, and it is a spiraling, self-sustaining road down to dysfunction.

One of the concerns with an affirming approach to gender dysphoria is the question of what is being affirmed. Some transgender individuals, including those that medically transition, never experience gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a genuine condition. Affirming the reality of gender dysphoria should not be controversial. 

But should we also affirm that transgender people actually are not of the same female or male biological sex they were born as? There are some people, and I am among them, who think that is going somewhat too far. Most transgender individuals are either biological male or female. Transgender transitioning does not change biological sex. Modern medicine has not overcome the immutability of biological sex in humans, at least not yet. Gender identity sometimes conflicts with biological sex. We do not need to know why that happens to see that it happens. It is also true and relevant that transgender males are not in all respects males and transgender females are not in all respects females. Some people want to deny the relevance of biological sex, other people want to deny the relevance of gender identity. Both manifestations of denialism are untenable. Therefore, the best practice policy will prioritize either gender or biological sex (factoring in transition status) when they conflict according to which is most relevant for the context.