I want to outline my ideal vision of how trans people should be able to live in society. It's actually very simple: being trans should be a private thing. It should be between the trans individual, their doctors, their partner and their family. In the ideal world, there would be no political dimension to the trans issue at all. In fact, we were once almost there: before the so-called 'trans tipping point'. Therefore, the trick is to find our way back there, preferably the shortest way back there.
This is why I'm trying so hard to de-escalate the trans culture war, to make the issue de-politicized again. This is also what has put me at odds with the trans activist establishment, which is gearing up to fight their fight for the long term. But I don't really want to have that kind of fight at all, and I think many trans people, perhaps the silent majority, are with me here. I think we can avoid having the fight if we have some productive and rational discussions, and come up with some compromises. I think this will allow us to go back to the way things were before, and it would be better for the majority of trans people that way.
Some activists might think that they are 'brave' for taking the fight to the highest level, for their version of absolute equality or whatever. But in doing so, they are dragging every trans person into it, without their consent. I don't really think it's ethical to do so, especially since trans people already have the burden of gender dysphoria. At some point, you've got to remember that this is not just a political thing, it's a mental health thing too. If only for this reason, compromise appears to me to be a much more ethical choice.
Does 'Gender Ideology' Exist? Applying the RIDE Method
Less moral panic, more rational analysis
Previously, I analyzed queer theory with the RIDE method, and found that there are fundamental problems with the whole philosophical paradigm. Specifically, I found that it is inherently anti-science, has no acceptable evidence base to its claims, and is doing a disservice to the LGBT community, especially the trans community, when it comes to arguing for acceptance and rights.
Today, I will be examining a related phenomenon: the movement opposing 'gender ideology'. While what is described as 'gender ideology' has considerable overlap with queer theory, it does not appear to be the same thing. Therefore, the 'anti-gender ideology' stance is not equivalent to simply opposing queer theory. This is why we need to use the RIDE method to examine the 'anti-gender ideology' stance in its own right.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: FAIL. When people speak of 'gender ideology', sometimes they are referring to queer theory, and its unscientific, ideological nature. But at other times, 'gender ideology' appears to be used as a dog-whistle to mean anything pro-trans, or indeed anything pro-LGBT. Like the way certain politicians and culture warriors use the word 'woke', the word 'gender ideology' is often used without clear definitions and boundaries, and this is what makes the whole anti-gender ideology thing confusing, irrational, and therefore unreasonable at times.
Let me give you an example. Some right-wing culture warriors are now saying that 'I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body' is an example of 'gender ideology'. However, this statement has long been part of how trans people describe their experiences, and has been around as far back as the middle of the 20th century (whereas queer theory only emerged in the late 1980s). It has been well recognized in academic literature written by doctors and psychologists who were writing from the viewpoints of clinical medicine and clinical psychology, not postmodernism. Therefore, it has nothing to do with queer theory. Moreover, if statements of genuine feeling from trans people are seen as part of an 'ideology', then trans identity itself would be seen as ideological, which is dangerous (as this would indeed justify the idea that transgenderism can be 'eradicated' from public life). I will talk more about this later. But the example just shows how the use of 'gender ideology' can conflate genuine LGBT identities and experiences with unscientific, ideological queer theory, and use the latter to smear, or even cause a moral panic around, the former. As I will discuss later, this has been a tactic used by populist politicians to take away LGBT rights.
I for Independent Thinking: FAIL. Clarity of thought is a precondition for genuine independent thinking, and the use of the vague label 'gender ideology' has done clarity a disservice. We can, and should, discuss the flaws of queer theory. However, the use of the vague description of 'gender ideology' has hampered serious, academic discussions about the flaws of queer theory, and instead allowed the rise of a generalized moral panic about pro-LGBT policies rooted in old-school liberal values like liberty, equality of opportunity, and compassion. In right-leaning circles, the heated moral panic atmosphere in recent years has made getting this point across almost impossible. Having to compete with the culture warrior talking points that are constantly and loudly broadcasted by certain media outlets and influencers has made the job of advancing rational debate very difficult. Meanwhile, in left-leaning circles, the fact that such a moral panic is happening on the right has made many people suspicious of even the slightest criticism of anything to do with the LGBT community, including queer theory. Overall, all this has led to an honest, rational discussion about queer theory becoming almost impossible to have, in the current climate.
D for Defending Freedom: MASSIVE FAIL. The conflation of genuine LGBT experiences and identities with queer theory has been used to justify taking away existing LGBT rights. For example, right-wing governments in several European countries came to power promising to oppose 'gender ideology', and ended up doing things like banning lesbian co-mothers from being listed on birth certificates, and banning trans people from changing their drivers licenses. These liberal accommodations were designed to prevent LGBT individuals from facing unusual challenges in their lives, so they can have equal opportunities in everyday life. They were not inspired by queer theory in any way, shape or form. The linkage of liberal pro-LGBT policies with the unscientific queer theory worldview, while having no basis in reality, has served as pretext for taking away existing LGBT accommodations and rights. In practice, this would mean less freedom for LGBT people to live openly in society.
Let's talk about the previously discussed example again. If 'I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body', a common way trans people have long described their feelings of gender dysphoria, is seen as an example of 'gender ideology', then trans identity, and perhaps gender dysphoria itself, becomes ideological. There would be no non-ideological way of describing the feeling of gender dysphoria, or articulating a trans identity at all. This would be dangerous, as it would indeed justify the idea that transgenderism can be 'eradicated' from public life, simply by completely denying its existence. Indeed, the infamous speech in which this idea became mainstream back in March this year was made in reference to a state law, which eliminated all state recognition for trans identity, and banned trans people from changing their documentation. Thus, gender dysphoria, and the trans identity resulting from it, is seen as a product of queer theory, and denying its existence is justified as an act of opposing queer theory ideology. This argument is not only unsound, it is also fundamentally illiberal and extremely cruel. It is also another example of linking liberal LGBT accommodation policies with queer theory to justify taking away such accommodations. Again, in practice, this would just mean less freedom for LGBT people to live openly in society.
E for Evidence: MASSIVE FAIL. As discussed, the 'anti-gender ideology' stance would have been soundly rooted in objective evidence if it were based entirely on queer theory alone, but this is clearly not the case. Instead, it is effectively an attempt to link liberal pro-LGBT policies with far-left postmodern queer theory, despite this link not being demonstrable in the real world (and the fact that liberals and far-left postmodernists generally don't work together in the real world). Hence, it is effectively making a dishonest argument out of a strawman, with real world harmful consequences on the freedoms of LGBT people. This is why, ultimately, the 'anti-gender ideology' stance is no better than queer theory itself, when it comes to the E for Evidence question, and we should be just as hesitant about allowing it to affect our politics.
Conclusions
It is definitely valid, and I believe correct, to have concerns about queer theory. Such an unscientific philosophical paradigm can only serve to confuse people, and harm LGBT rights and acceptance. Indeed, I believe queer theory is partly responsible for the current backlash against the LGBT community, and for this, I hope to see it get condemned to the dustbin of history in my lifetime. The fact that queer theory-inspired activists have tried all sorts of ways to suppress criticism of their ideology is particularly frustrating.
On the other hand, the movement against 'gender ideology' appears to be a dishonest attempt to harvest the widespread frustration with queer theory, and use it as a pretext to oppose and repeal LGBT accommodations that were previously enacted from the place of liberal values like compassion, equality of opportunity and freedom. Classical liberals should resist such a movement of authoritarianism by stealth. Instead, we should make our own rational, objective reality based case against queer theory, separate from this 'gender ideology' moral panic. While it has become difficult to have a rational debate about queer theory (or any other LGBT issue) in the current climate, I believe we must still try our best to do so.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
You can also read and follow TaraElla's second substack, focused on political philosophy, here.
All I know is that you can't *demand* that someone tolerate your behavior. Belligerence in this regard doesn't make it. You can demand that people tolerate your skin color and the rest of your genetic endowment, because that is a cherished value of society, as well as the religion you profess to believe in and practice, as long as that religion is peaceful and doesn't violate the law.
When I was young living transgender was unthinkable. I would have been put in a mental hospital, even by my very loving and educated parents.
Many years later I moved to a small town. I got to know my fellow townspeople, my neighbors, and I got to really love them. And then because I loved them I had to show them what was so dear to me. I went about town, I went about my business, looking and acting the way I really felt happy looking and acting, and everybody smiled at me even more than they usually did. And I was so happy! I would go home and jump for joy. I have had much joy in my life, but those were the first times I was so exuberant as well as joyful that I uncontrollably, repeatedly leaped into the air.
I could never understand the belligerence of some of my fellow trans people. It is simply not something that one is entitled to be belligerent about. You are asking someone to be tolerant of your violating behavioral norms. This requires a leap for them to take. Logic and teaching are some of your weapons, but the greatest weapon is love.
Assuming hostility from society as a whole creates an attitude of belligerence. And in that case, opposition is just what you'll get. And if you do something that negatively impacts your neighbors, like continuing to exploit your male secondary characteristics to defeat women in sports, and then belligerently and totally illogically saying you are entitled to it, you will only provoke ill will being rained upon yourself and also those who might share your categorical identity in the eyes of your neighbors.
I've protested an unjust war, and many actions by those in power over the years have provoked my indignation. But the actions I protested were done by people who were demanding that *I* tolerate *them*, often by lies and implied threats, and I justifiably refused. It is important to understand the circumstances in which one would be the perpetrator of ill will.
I will offer a few comments on terms from my perspective. Theory, in scientific terms, refers to an explanation for a set of facts that best accounts for those facts. To the extent that a theory has usefulness it generates hypotheses that can be empirically tested and thereby either further validate the theory or raise questions about it. For example, operant learning theory is an explanation for how learning takes place. It gives rise to many hypotheses that can be and have been empirically tested. Philosophy is an explanation that may go beyond a mere set of facts, in need of an explanation, and may through logical analysis and reasoned argument lay out a reasonable explanation that is far more inclusive than a theory but may not be empirically testable following the principles for scientific investigation. A philosophical explanation makes sense, at least to a significant body of people. A philosophy usually rests upon at least one assumption or given. Ideology is essentially a belief system applied for the purpose of guiding one's actions in daily life. An ideology may be influenced by a philosophy. For example, Communist ideology is a political ideology influenced by the philosophical writings of Karl Marx or Marxism.
I also would like to suggest that the conflation of sex and gender seems to be ubiquitous in society today. When I was taking university classes "sex" was a term applied to the physical characteristics exhibited by an organism and in particular those physical characteristics directly or indirectly associated with reproduction. On the other hand, "gender" was a term applied to characteristics largely associated with behavior, including attitudes, and presentation of an organism, usually signaling its reproductive status. There generally is a close correlation between sex and gender but it is not a perfect correlation. In short, there is more variability in gender than in sex. This is evident in psychological tests that include a dimensional scale for masculine/feminine. That scale provides an index score for each test taker. A testee of the male sex may score significantly higher on femininity than on masculinity or conversely a testee of the female sex may score significantly higher on masculinity than on femininity. This is not typical but it can and does happen, which clearly demonstrates that gender is more variable than sex.
Thus, when people use the word "gender" instead of sex they are addressing the behavioral and presentation characteristics of an organism. For example, when a form asks one for one's gender and gives you the choice of male or female it implies that there is a one to one correspondence between sex and gender. However, sex is more like a category and gender is more like a dimension. Responding to such a question so structured is to further validate the belief that sex and gender are synonymous and represent a near absolute dichotomy. My inclination when I see such a question on a form is to leave it blank. Generally, conservatives believe that sex and gender exist in a one to one correspondence and anyone that believes otherwise is being irrational. Thus, they also belief that gender identity should correspond to sex as well.
There is a great deal of debate about whether identifying with some gender characteristics more than others and having a gender identity incongruent with one's sex has a biological basis or not. I would suggest that whether the basis for this identification and often the gender dysphoria associated with it has a biological, psychological, sociological, etc. basis is irrelevant. The simple fact that one lives in a country that advocates for personal liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness means that one has an inherent right to live in whatever manner one chooses to live as long as it does not impinge on anyone else’s right to exercise personal sovereignty over their life. Political interference with that right through regulations and laws is contrary to the American political philosophy evident in its founding documents. In my opinion, underlying such interference is an authoritarian ideology that is attempting to undermine the political philosophy that supports a free society. Such opposition is not new and has existed from the very beginning. It simply takes on different forms and focuses in different historical periods.