Today, I want to respond to the article 'Why I became trans', written by Debbie Hayton and published on Unherd last year. Hayton is a trans woman with views that are considered unusual in the trans community, and as my regular readers will know, I love studying unusual perspectives. I believe that, the more we debate things from fresh perspectives, the closer we get to the truth. This response is divided into six parts, with each part addressing one issue.
Part 1: Is gender identity 'bunkum'?
In the article, Hayton questions the notion of 'gender identity'. Indeed, she goes as far as to say 'what if gender identity is bunkum?' Hayton's problem with the concept of gender identity is that there is no clear evidence for its existence, at least in the form commonly described in the trans discourse, i.e. 'an innate and immutable feeling of maleness and femaleness' that exists in everyone. Previously, I have also questioned the existence of gender identity in this way, given that many non-trans people have told me that they don't feel like they have a 'gender identity' themselves. My conclusion was that gender identity likely only exists in trans people, because of gender dysphoria. I think we develop this strong sense of gender identity precisely because of the mismatch between what we see ourselves as, and what other people see us as, often from a very early age. Hence, I actually agree with Hayton that the way 'gender identity' is understood in the trans discourse is probably wrong. Indeed, I have argued that it could be harmful for trans acceptance to insist that 'everyone has a gender identity'.
However, even if the majority of non-trans people don't have a 'gender identity', it doesn't invalidate the fact that trans people clearly have one. Therefore, the existence of 'gender identity' is clearly backed by evidence, at least in the population of trans people. This means that, in any case, gender identity is certainly not 'bunkum'!
Part 2: The real meaning of gender identity
The trans community is actually really diverse, and I really can't speak for all trans people. But I can speak for myself. I certainly do have a strong sense of gender identity. It is the product of my life experiences, especially my childhood experiences. When most of your friends are girls, when your interests overlap more with the girls' interests, and when boy 'culture' feels alien to you, you naturally 'identify' with the girls. For me, this started in early childhood, when kids sort out where they belong in this world. It has continued throughout my formative years. For example, liking the same music, TV shows and movies further strengthened my sense of 'identifying' with the girls. Even in college and beyond, my closest friends were girls. It would be natural for someone like me to identify with the girls more than the boys, right? You might say that this is all just stereotypes, but when there is an overarching pattern of connecting with one gender more than the other, that is also lifelong, then the formation of a strong identity makes perfect sense. It's just as natural as someone who has lived in Canada all their lives strongly identifying as Canadian, or someone who has lived in Australia all their lives strongly identifying as Australian. My gender identity as a woman makes perfect sense in my life, and is personally important to me, in a similar way.
I am sure that the relationship 'signalling' that Hayton discussed in her article (see Part 3) also plays a role here. There are many feminine gay men out there who share many of my life experiences, yet they ultimately identify as gay men and not women. We know that, before puberty, trans women and gay men often share many similarities. Some gay men might even recall having 'wanted to be a girl' when they were children, just like trans women. Yet it is puberty, and the onset of sexual maturity, that separates the two. Perhaps gay men are 'wired' to 'signal' to the world, and hence their potential partners, that they are men. This would likely prevent them from continuing to develop a strong identity as a woman. Therefore, it could be said that my inborn mode of relationship signalling was likely essential to me continuing to develop an identity as a woman throughout puberty and beyond. However, even if relationship signalling was an essential component to the development of my gender identity, it clearly wasn't the sole component, or the only important component. This would mean that 'gender identity' is not just 'atypical sexual signalling' as Hayton hypothesized. It is so much more than that. (However, the hypothesis of 'atypical sexual signalling' remains a valuable one. I will discuss this in the next part.)
Part 3: The atypical sexual signalling hypothesis is worth investigating
Hayton hypothesizes that trans people are trans because of what she calls 'atypical sexual signalling'. I actually think this is probably the most important insight of the whole article. I have long been of the opinion that, if there is some mystery about human nature that needs to be explained, evolutionary biology should be the first place we should look for answers. Sexual signalling is an important part of reproduction in all animals, and humans are no exception. Therefore, it is something that should not be overlooked when trying to understand sexual orientation and gender identity. The empirical evidence to support Hayton's hypothesis also exists: almost all trans people report feeling dysphoric about being seen as an attractive member of their birth sex, or being in a relationship where they 'play the role' of their birth sex. Given that this characteristic is common to almost all trans people, who otherwise vary in many other ways, I would say that this is a core characteristic of trans people. In other words, what Hayton calls 'atypical sexual signalling' is a core property of transness, although there is no evidence yet as to whether this is the root cause of transness itself, as Hayton seems to claim. (We must always remember that correlation does not prove causation.)
I actually wouldn't call it 'atypical sexual signalling', because the 'atypical signalling' of trans people is not just limited to sexual relationships. It is clear that trans people would like to be seen as the gender they identify as, and would experience dysphoria if seen as their birth sex, even in contexts where there is no potential for a sexual relationship. Therefore, this 'atypical signalling' actually applies to all relationships with all other human beings, and should be described as something like 'atypical relationship signalling'. This actually makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, because the 'programs' that are essential for reproduction are often so strongly wired that they affect other parts of life too.
Part 4: The Blanchard typology only adds confusion
Hayton has, in other articles, expressed agreement with at least some parts of the Blanchard typology. In this article, she raises the concept of autogynephilia (AGP), which she interprets as sexually signalling to oneself, and hence consistent with Blanchard's description of it as a 'target location error'. However, as I discussed in previous articles, it is clear that most trans people do not have AGP. When trans women 'signal' that they are women, they are not signalling to themselves. Instead, they are signalling to potential partners that they are women. Moreoever, a 'target location error' like AGP would logically not require sexual signalling of any kind anyway. Hayton's clumsy attempt at validating the Blanchard typology thus fails for the same reason the Blanchard typology fails: it is simply not consistent with empirical reality.
(Note that I am not denying that AGP exists. As a matter of fact, it does, and avoiding this topic will only give ammunition to trans skeptics. However, most trans people clearly don't have AGP. On the other hand, most people with AGP are heterosexual men, who might fantasize about transitioning, but will never actually do it, because they know they wouldn't enjoy real life as a woman. I also don't rule out that a few AGP men might have transitioned into trans women to 'fulfill their fantasy', but they appear to be the exception, not the norm. Many of them also promptly detransition when the effect of hormones kick in and their sex drive becomes suppressed.)
Elsewhere in the article, Hayton also states that trans people sexually signal 'in a way more typical of the opposite sex'. This would actually be more in line with observable fact, as discussed above. However, this would actually be inconsistent with the AGP explanation, because biological women clearly don't sexually signal to themselves! In fact, acknowledging that trans people sexually signal 'in a way more typical of the opposite sex' would also invalidate the Blanchard typology more fundamentally, because the Blanchard typology clearly doesn't allow for this. In the Blanchard typology, there are only two types of trans women, the AGP type and the 'homosexual' (HSTS) type, and neither type is in any way 'more typical of the opposite sex' when it comes to sexual relationships. Hayton's attempt to reconcile the Blanchard typology and the idea of 'atypical sexual signalling' therefore fails to be internally consistent.
Given that the Blanchard typology only adds unnecessary confusion, I think we should abandon this approach. Instead, I think we should focus on studying atypical relationship signalling in trans people as a standalone topic in its own right, without a-priori bias from Blanchard's theory. Perhaps we will find many useful insights there.
Part 5: Biology and gender identity is not an either/or choice
In the article, Hayton also raises the point that 'sexual signalling does not supplant biological sex'. I don't know why she thinks she has to say this, but among the many reasonable people I know, we are committed to respecting both biological differences and gender identity. It is clearly possible to respect both; it is not an either/or choice. Hayton then says that activists are demanding that 'gender identity replaces biological sex'. This might be true of some activists, but again, most reasonable people would reject such an either/or approach. Reasonable people generally believe that society can and should come up with reasonable accommodations for trans people, which also respects biological differences.
While gender identity does not override biological differences, it should still be respected in its own right. The fact that the gender identity of trans people includes the element of 'atypical sexual signalling' means that it is intimately tied to sexual orientation. Repressing one's 'atypical sexual signalling' is at least just as painful and harmful as repressing one's sexual orientation. Therefore, if you believe it is the right thing to do to accept and accommodate people on the basis of sexual orientation, it is just logical to extend this to gender identity too. The refusal to acknowledge and accommodate gender identity would be at least as cruel as opposing gay rights. Moreover, to dismiss gender identity as just a 'personality trait' has strong parallels to dismissing gay and lesbian relationships as just 'friendships', something those opposed to gay marriage used to do quite a lot.
Part 6: Completely rejecting gender identity is very dismissive
From what I see, the overall tone of the article is one of being dismissive of the whole concept of gender identity. Gender identity is variously described as potentially 'bunkum', worthy of joining debunked concepts in history books, and 'useful for autogynephilic transsexuals in a society that stigmatizes unusual male sexuality'. It is also unnecessarily pitted against biological sex as an either/or choice, a position most reasonable people would reject. As discussed in Part 4, there is no need to reject gender identity in order to respect biological differences. This is a dishonest talking point that has been made repeatedly by people with an anti-trans agenda, and it's time we did more to debunk it.
While not explicitly stated, when taken together, the above points seem to support the view that society should reject the validity of 'gender identity' entirely. This would actually amount to a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the experiences of the vast majority of trans people, because they clearly have a strong gender identity. Moreover, as I demonstrated in Part 2, our strong sense of gender identity is rooted in the totality of our life experiences, and not limited to 'atypical sexual signalling'. Thus, a society that rejects gender identity would necessarily mean a society that refuses to understand gender dysphoria properly. This would not be compatible with taking a fair and compassionate stance towards trans people.
As a Moral Libertarian, my position on basically every matter is that everyone should have equal moral agency to speak and act according to their sincerely held beliefs. Hayton is certainly entitled to her own free speech, but she is not entitled to speak for other trans people. Just because Hayton has her own views on the matter, it does not entitle her to invalidate the strongly held views of other trans people. Also, while Hayton is certainly welcome to question 'gender identity', others should have the equal right to question her point of view too, especially when there are faults in the argument that could have an impact on wider society's understanding of the issue in question. In particular, I am concerned that the article seems to leave readers with the impression that 'gender identity' is an invalid or even dangerous concept that has been sustained by activists with an agenda, which would be a severe misrepresentation of the objective facts.
It could be up to trans people to break the stalemate
Previously, I suggested a possible post-woke model of trans discourse, which will hopefully lead to a more productive discussion and a pathway forward for trans rights reforms. Such a discourse will put the focus back on gender dysphoria and the everyday needs of trans people like employment, housing and health care, and move away from the language and philosophy wars. Today, I want to talk about how we might build such a movement. I actually think that trans people are in the best position to help bring this about. Let me explain.
Trans issues have gone truly mainstream, whether we like it or not. 2022 is the year in which trans issues have truly become a routine part of national level politics, as seen in the US Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the Australian federal election, and the British Conservative Party leadership election. Unfortunately, in each of these cases, it is trans skeptical forces which have brought the issue up, and there is no reason to expect anything different anytime soon. In the face of this, trans allies, many of whom don't exactly understand the nuances of trans issues either, have often reflexively taken up the talking points of the loudest activists to argue back. What they don't understand is that these activists don't always represent the reality or the interests of many trans people. In some cases, these talking points have actually been unhelpful for us, and have given gender critical activists further ammunition to use against us. Lost in all of this is an actual understanding of trans people's lives and needs.
Without an intervention from people who actually understand what it is like to be trans, I can't see the current stalemate ending. As trans people, we have a full understanding of what it is like to live with gender dysphoria, and what it is like to live in this world as a trans person. Therefore, we are well positioned to bring this conversation back to reality. Of course, it won't be entirely easy, because the loudest voices on both sides are backed by a level of money and organization that the trans community simply can't match. However, many people are actually very interested in what trans people have to say, so we at least have an avenue to make ourselves heard.
The next problem then would be how many people we can reach. Again, we are at a heavy disadvantage here, given that the culture warriors have bigger platforms than us. However, things often start small and snowball to get bigger over time. The important thing would be to first get the message out, and get the discussion started. Every single bit helps. For example, when we see the language wars heating up again, we can gently remind people that these things don't really help trans lives, and suggest re-orientation towards priorities like employment and health care. When we see heated philosophical discussions that treat trans issues as abstract hypotheticals, we can try to bring the practical reality of gender dysphoria back into the picture. Replying to what other people out there are saying can also be a useful way to insert our voices into the conversation, and to challenge existing misconceptions on both sides. Bit by bit, we can change the conversation.
How to Build the Post Woke Movement
Previously, I have outlined what a post-woke alternative would look like. Today, I want to talk about how we can advance the post-woke alternative in the cultural discourse.
As I said before, the current cultural and political discourse of the West is dominated by two echo chambers, the so-called woke and anti-woke. The existence of these echo chambers essentially keep other ways of thinking at the margins, severely limiting the influence of any post-woke ideas. Moreover, the echo chambers are maintained by everything from confirmation bias and habitual behavioral patterns, to cancel culture, to deliberate organization and interests backed by lots of money. Therefore, the key to building a successful post-woke alternative is to pierce and disrupt the echo chambers on both sides. If we can do this, then we can truly end the woke vs anti-woke wars. If not, then post-wokeism will remain no more than a nice theoretical idea, with very little practical influence in the real world.
I guess the first thing to do is to accept that we are not operating on a level playing field, compared to the media personalities and influencers on both sides, who use their big platforms to reinforce the dominant ideas of the echo chambers. This means that we have to start small, be patient, and wait for it to snowball into something bigger over time. We need to insist on talking about the post-woke alternative, and providing the post-woke voice when it comes to various social and cultural debates. Some days we might get very frustrated, feeling like we are essentially shouting into the void. Other days it might all feel futile, as our well-reasoned positions get drowned out by the loud culture warriors on both sides. But we need to keep going, if we are to have any chance of changing things at all.
Next, we need to recognize that many people who are trapped in the echo chambers actually feel uncomfortable with the status quo too. This even includes people whose work are essential to holding up the dominant narratives of the echo chambers, like journalists, media personalities, intellectuals, influencers and more. They might be quietly questioning the dominant narrative in their echo chambers, the echo chambers they are otherwise helping to maintain. We need to help that questioning process along. For example, whenever a culture war flare up occurs between the two sides, it actually provides a good opportunity to intervene, to help people question the soundness of the whole thing.
Finally, we need to be able to regularly come up with unique and innovative solutions to the problems and controversies that make up the fault lines of our cultural landscape. This is the best way to demonstrate the advantages of the post-woke approach compared to both the woke and anti-woke orthodoxies. People generally pay attention to something new, and prefer fresh ideas to talking points that have been repeated over and over again. Moreover, many people out there are actually looking for ways to build bridges across factions, perhaps because they want society to function again, or perhaps just because they don't want their family and friends to keep fighting the same old fights all the time. Anyway, the post-woke movement should provide these answers, when the woke and anti-woke factions can't and won't. Many people will appreciate it, and it will make our movement bigger and stronger over time.
Summing up, this is my three step plan for building the post-woke alternative: firstly, we need a lot of patience and perseverance, and recognition that this isn't going to be easy. Secondly, we need to seek opportunities to help more people question the status quo. Finally, we need to provide solutions to build bridges and resolve conflicts where the woke and anti-woke won't.