“Gender Critical” Views Are Disgusting: A Justification

An argument on an open stage that invites proper scrutiny

I believe in biology. Both in the sense that I believe that the scientific method is the best way we have to reliably find out the truth; and also in that I believe in the mainstream understanding and facts that we have about living organisms — the study of which we call biology. So… what is this guy on about?

To understand what this quite embarrassing tweet means you need to understand both what “Gender Critical” (GC) ideology is, and also how they attempt to sell that to the general public. The reason that GC people want to present their ideology as “just biology” is so they can sell their opponents as “anti-reality”, and thus instantly dismissable, but also so that they can deflect from the real criticism of their ideology.

So What Are The Issues With GCism?

GC does contain (at least one) claim about biology, but that isn’t all that it is. As I explain in a previous written argument, the core GC argument is:

A) All humans are born with a “sex” property that can only be one of two values and cannot change

B) This “sex” property should be used to segregate people in society, law and medicine sometimes

As I explain in that previous essay, it doesn’t actually matter for trans rights if (A) is true or false. It happens to be false (because sex is just a combination of your material sex characteristics, and many of those can change) but if it was true then it alone wouldn’t be enough to justify taking away people’s protections, freedoms and rights, which is required by (B). If there is a property that fits the description of (A) then it clearly doesn’t predict what sexism you face, who finds you attractive, how society interacts with you etc, so it has no use for determining legislation or social rules around those things. And this is my main contention with GCism: that they want to take away my human rights, not that they disagree on (A). After all if I met someone who didn’t want to take away my rights then why would it affect me at all that they believed (A) or not? Who cares.

Therefore the assertion that I find “believing in biology” disgusting is very plainly a strawman. I do however disagree with the GC claim (A) because they cannot actually justify it or even consistently explain what they think “sex” is. What is “sex” to you if not just your material sex characteristics? But equally I don’t really care whether (A) is true or false beyond my own personal interest in biology.

So Why Is GC Disgusting?

(B) is a political demand and would seriously negatively affect trans people’s lives. The (B) part of the GC argument is used to justify campaigning for all kinds of extremist measures such as banning trans women and girls from the public spaces they use today, taking away legal protections from misogynistic sexism, banning trans healthcare, enforcing conversion therapy etc. And each of those demands are individually disgusting.

It is inherently disgusting to want to ban trans women and girls from women’s spaces when we know they need those spaces for the same reason the spaces exist in the first place — to combat misogynistic sexism. We know that trans women and girls haven’t been a danger to cis women and girls as they’ve been in those spaces longer than any of us have been alive, without issue. We also know that “bathroom bills” do cause real harm to trans people, and also to cis women and girls who are often caught up in them. The demand here is to make some people’s lives much less safe in a way that would stop them participating in society over nothing — for no gain to anyone. The same is true for taking away our legal protections from misogyny and other abuse, removing our healthcare, torturing trans children with conversion therapy etc.

There may be some people who self identify as GC reading this and thinking “Well I don’t want any of that stuff, how is my worldview disgusting?”. Of course like any political movement GC has a range of positions from moderate to extreme, but the positions I’ve highlighted here are mainstream GC. If you consider yourself GC but don’t want to take away my human rights then sure maybe your worldview isn’t disgusting… but you disagree with most GC people, including many of the major players and groups, over their most fundamental political positions. Call yourself what you want but why side with, and thus implicitly endorse, the extremism of mainstream GC? Maybe that is disgusting too.

I actually find all of these positions disgusting, and I’m pretty suspicious of anyone who doesn’t

Ok So Will You Debate Me?

Yes. That is what I am doing right now isn’t it. I have publicly presented my argument and written the justification for it. This is an open stage, you can apply as much scrutiny as you want. If you disagree with me you are welcome to either respond, or admit that you simply don’t have a justified counter argument to what I’ve said. You’re welcome to respond to my other arguments too. I promise I will make an effort to respond to you if you make a serious attempt.

But I know that’s not really what this person, or the several other GCs who keep going on about “debate”, want. They wanted a live TV “debate” on GB News or some other right wing media outlet. Live “debates” are theatre that favours lying, gish galloping and charisma over being factually correct and making logical arguments. Written debate is the exact opposite, which to be blunt is why they all love live “debates” and hate the written format. If your ideas were any good then you would be able to present them without relying on performance.

There is another issue with accepting these higher profile live “debates”, and that is of lending credibility and platforming. I don’t want to use my platform and reputation to give credibility to some grifter who doesn’t care about being right and just wants attention and to make unjustified claims in front of the greatest number of people possible. Equally I don’t want to give credibility to a platform that is dedicated to campaigning against human rights.

So I’m not saying no to live “debates”. In fact I have two different regular call in shows where you can just debate me live on air. But I am saying no to anyone who constantly makes claims and then refuses to justify them or to address my justified counter arguments. And I am saying no to anyone who just wants attention and to use my platform as a springboard for their own career. I only want an exchange of ideas, not a performance — I care about being right, maybe you don’t.

I just find it a bit sus that you only want to “debate” in a format that favours one liners and shouting over people