THREAD:
I was recently blocked by a fellow socialist, for asking something (I thought perfectly reasonable) about the 'transgender vs women's right debate.

And when reasonable questions get you blocked, well then I think you have to go on asking them, don't you?
So here goes.

I’ve spent a few months over in another corner of twitter, reading up on the debate. For those of you not familiar with it, it's a nasty one. Very broadly speaking, there are trans-rights activists (TRAs) on one side, and second-wave, gender-critical (GC) feminists on the other.

What’s the issue?

It’s a proposed change to the law: currently, a trans person can get a gender recognition certificate (GRC), recognising them in law as male/female. BUT it's a rigorous process, involving doctors' reports and 2 years “living in their acquired gender.”

Now, this is clunky and difficult; so there's a proposal afoot to massively simplify it to a process of self-ID; no medical input, no wait -- just a statutory declaration and you get your GRC.

(And to be clear: neither the old process not the proposed one requires surgery).

Trans organisations such as Stonewall not surprisingly welcome the self-ID proposals. So far, so fair enough,

So why's there a debate at all?

Because of concerns that self-ID puts women at risk; because:

-If anyone can get a GRC, what's to stop people abusing the system?

-What’s to stop predatory men declaring themselves women to get access to vulnerable women in female-only settings (eg refuges and prisons)?

-Or unscrupulous ones, to take advantage of women-only scholarships, shortlists, etc?

And that concern seems fair enough to me as well.

Now, the state of this debate on the left seems to be this:

that to support trans ppl (which we certainly should do), we must dismiss the concerns about women, or else we're BIGOTS and TRANSPHOBES.

And here you may want to reach for that block button, because:

I disagree.

I'm a criminal lawyer. I represent paedophiles, murderers, con-men, rapists. I see the human race in the raw. And I know this:

-If a system can be played, someone WILL play it.
-Where there’s vulnerability, someone WILL exploit it.
-Whatever the depth, someone WILL plumb it.

So will anyone exploit self-ID? Hell yes.

-You've read about Karen White, the sex offender who claimed to be female, got put in a female prison and promptly raped inmates there? Course you have.

-You’ve heard Ian Huntley is following the same path?

Chancers, both of them.

So self-ID creates a potential risk for the most vulnerable women in our society: in prisons, hospitals, refuges, refugee camps and so on. (and don’t forget some of those women will be trans women).

But the trans community, understandably, mostly want self-ID.

What to do?

In most situations, we have no difficulty dealing with the concept of one person's rights impinging on another's.

Maybe my right to do DIY conflicts with your right to sleep after the night shift. Neither of us is being unreasonable. Our interests just happen to conflict.

Do we deal with this by digging our heels in and taking absolutist stances? Bawling "no debate" through the party wall?

Of course not. We listen to each other and come up with a compromise. DIY after 4pm, perhaps.

But we seem to have difficulty applying that concept to self-ID

Of course, it’s not just about the law. There is a massive divide between GC and trans ideologies, about WHAT GENDER IS.

-GC: it’s a social construct. It is bollocks. To tear it down.

-Trans: it’s real and meaningful. It is an innate identity that makes us who we are.

These are metaphysical positions, and they are hopelessly irreconcilable. The debate is raging out there, a war with no hope of armistice.

But does that need to bother us, as socialists? Is it our job to get our knickers in a twist about metaphysics?

I say it isn't

Of course it's interesting. It goes to the core question of ‘who we are, what is the nature of our existence?’

But my observation of this debate is that people get so heavily involved in arguing the ideologies that we lose sight of what matters.

By all means, let’s each think about the metaphysics, and form our own opinions if we want.

But we don't need to agree. It's not the job of the left to police people's thoughts, or to mandate belief systems.

Consider this:

1) I don't believe in Allah (and I drink like a fish).

2) I'm opposed to Islamophobia.

Do you have any difficulty at all reconciling those two positions?

I suspect not. My atheism (and indeed my mild alcoholism) has no bearing on my commitment to creating a fair society.

So in exactly the same way:

-I don't have to agree with trans ideology to oppose discrimination v trans ppl.

-You don't have to agree with GC feminism to care about vulnerable women.

Our job as socialists is to work towards a just society, and protect ALL vulnerable groups.

I don’t know the answers. But if they are to be found, I want them to be found by us on the left, don’t you?

So what I’m asking is, please can we learn to talk about this in a civilised and comradely fashion without shouting ‘bigot’ at each other?

Thank you.