One of the most common admonishments repeated by transgender activists is “Be Kind”. We’re told that if a person believes they were born in the wrong body, we must immediately affirm this idea by helping them transition to the opposite sex. We’re further chastised that failing to affirm such ideas is synonymous with intentionally hurting trans-identified people, in a manner that can only be motivated by the most appalling bigotry.
Of course, there are many people that suffer from gender dysphoria and all such people deserve the utmost care and compassion. In fact, a recent study carried out by Dutch researchers tracked 2,772 people from 11 years old until they were 26 years old, and found that 527 of the cohort (that is 19%) had experienced “gender non-contentedness” by adolescence. That’s a very large minority.
We could then ask what the most kind way is to treat a child who is not content with their gender. Should we affirm that the wrong gender was assigned at birth for all children who are not content with their gender? Is the most kind thing to do for 11 year-olds in this position, to prescribe consequential and life-altering medical interventions to avoid the “wrong puberty”? Alternatively, should we instead explain that such distressing feelings are common and will most likely desist during puberty?
Contrary to the tweet illustrated above, the Dutch study previously referred to found that only 111 of the 527 children who experienced “gender non-contentedness”, continued to experience these feelings into their twenties. That is, only 21% of the gender-confused children saw those feelings persist, while in 79% of cases the gender dysphoria desisted naturally. In fact, the chief psychiatrist at one of the two government-approved paediatric gender clinics in Finland, reported that 12 separate studies had all demonstrated that “four out of five” gender dysphoric children will grow out of their dysphoria naturally. Moreover during the David Freeman audit at the Tavistock, even the most enthusiastic advocates for gender-affirming care accepted that most gender dysphoric children would not retain a trans identity into adulthood, and that they could not tell which cases would desist and which would persist.
So for any cohort of young children who report that they are uncomfortable with their gender, the only certainties are that the great majority will see their distress desist naturally during puberty, and that it is impossible to distinguish which are the small minority who will retain a trans identity into adulthood. In that context, how could it be kind to affirm statements by children about being born in the wrong body, and then prescribe life-altering medical pathways on this basis? Such an approach is certain to cause unnecessary harms to many vulnerable children. This is precisely the opposite of kind.
Conversely, in cases where gender dysphoric children are not prescribed any pharmaceutical treatments like puberty blockers, what would be the kind thing to say in this context? Should we explain that confusion and discomfort about gender is common and very often resolved naturally, or should we report that suicide is an expected outcome in the absence of puberty blockers?
There are many studies that have considered the suicide risk associated with gender dysphoria. There is no good evidence that gender dysphoric children who don’t receive puberty blockers are more likely to commit suicide. For example, this multi-decade study in Finland concluded that “gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of suicide mortality”. Moreover, when SCOTUS asked Chase Strangio about this specific issue, the response accepted that “there is no evidence that this treatment [puberty blockers] reduces completed suicide”. How could it be kind to gender dysphoric children to falsely report that an expected outcome if they are not prescribed puberty blockers is suicide? Telling the truth about gender dysphoria is not hurting people who identify as transgender. What increases the risk of harm to those who are trans-identified, is the kind of highly unsafe message about suicide that is promoted in the tweet illustrated above. This is precisely the opposite of kind.
The onus to treat trans-identified people with the utmost care and compassion, can have different implications for adults who are competent to make life-altering decisions for themselves. In this context, we can consider the most sympathetic way to manage circumstances such as trans-identified males who wish to compete in female sports categories.
The idea that there is no evidence of any biological advantage for trans-identified males, which would compromise the fairness of their participation in female sports categories, is utterly delusional. There are mountains of evidence indicating that both fairness and safety remain compromised even after testosterone suppression. This is why World Athletics now requires a cheek swab to test for biological sex before an athlete can compete in the female category. It is certainly not kind to women to insist that they must compete against males, especially when in many circumstances this requires women to accommodate males in their changing rooms. Insisting that a trans-identified male can choose the female gender and therefore use the female changing room, allows men to fully expose themselves to women. There is nothing kind about compromising the privacy and dignity of women. Neither is it kind to trans-identified men, to tell them that such behaviour is acceptable. This is precisely the opposite of kind.
It is incredible to see educated people become convinced that a woman who prefers not to undress beside a naked man she doesn’t know, must be a bigot who wants to harm vulnerable people. It is even more incredible to see the same educated people insist that when a trans-identified male wants to punch women in the head, it is the man who is “vulnerable” and that the woman should “be kind” by accepting a fractured skull so as not to hurt his feelings. While advocating for such dangerous and immoral positions is utterly appalling, it is not at all new. Many of the most harmful cults in history have been comprised of people who claimed they were just being kind to others, despite the very obvious harms they were causing.