One of the new norms that transgender ideology has been most insistent on trying to enforce, is the use of preferred pronouns. Even if we ignore the enormous list of neopronouns, there remain demands that we must use whatever gender pronoun a person identifies with. Conversely, referring to a trans-identified person by their biological sex rather than their adopted gender, is deemed synonymous with malign bigotry.
In my mind, this situation is not entirely dissimilar from speaking with religious votaries. I have often been in conversation with Roman Catholic priests. I will by default refer to say “Father Joe” rather than just “Joe”, even though I don’t believe for a second that their ordination involved the Creator Of The Universe bestowing them with any kind of special status. Similarly, when I have been talking with trans-identified males I have previously used their preferred female pronouns, even though I don’t believe that they are female. In my experience, one difference between these situations is that Roman Catholic priests would typically be embarrassed at the idea of someone addressing them with a pretence of religious tenets that they in fact reject. That is, upon realising that I am an atheist, a “Father Joe” would normally ask that I just refer to him as “Joe”.
There are of course exceptions to such an approach. Firstly, I would not be critical of others who took a different view from mine, and insisted on using pronouns that accord with their own beliefs. There is nothing inherently unkind about stating that a male person is actually male, or that a female person is actually female. In fact, what is impolite in this context is seeking to pressure people into making statements that they don’t believe. Compelled speech can be just as improper as any other compromise to the freedom of expression.
Secondly, there are circumstances where the requirement for absolute ground truth must overcome polite fictions. For example, I have been involved with litigation around publicly funded chaplaincy positions. In that context, it was necessary for me to be clear that I believe the religious ideas behind the title “Father” to be superstitious gibberish. Of course, I would not typically volunteer that view upon meeting a priest for the first time, no more than I would meet a trans-identified man for the first time and immediately point out that their actual biological sex remains perfectly transparent to everyone.
In contrast, many of those promoting transgender ideology insist that everyone must adhere to their fiction in all circumstances. For example, the UK Supreme Court recently ruled that for the purposes of the Equality Act, the definition of “sex” must relate to the biological sex of any given person rather than their adopted identity. To permit otherwise would be to immediately set at nought all of the hard won sex-based rights for women and girls. However, some advocates of transgender ideology believe that an apology is due from anyone who merely reports on what the Supreme Court decided.
It is incredibly dangerous to insist that ideology must be prioritised over demonstrable and verifiable facts, even in the context of legal proceedings. The result of ignoring reality in this way will be extremely harmful for the more vulnerable sections of society that legal rights have been created to protect. For example, consider the case of the multiple rapist Stephen Wood, who is more that six feet tall with a very heavy build. After self identifying as Karen White, without any hormones or surgeries, this inmate was relocated to a female prison and was then responsible for additional sexual assaults in that environment.
In these circumstances, those advocating for transgender ideology insist that anyone who describes this inmate as a man is merely “invested in upsetting vulnerable people”. While demanding that Karen White is a woman and chastising anyone who disagrees, they offer precisely zero consideration for how vulnerable the women are who are locked in a cell with this person. The feelings of Karen White are prioritised over the safety of women. Similar problems arise with regard to female sports categories. Consider the case of Boyd Burton, who decided to identify as Fallon Fox.
Without informing their opponent that Fallon Fox was a transgender identity, this MMS fighter proceeded with a bout against Tamikka Brents in the female category. Brents suffered a concussion, a fractured skull and was left with seven staples in her head. If before the bout someone had mentioned that the opponent facing Brents was a man, those advocating for transgender ideology would admonish that person that they were merely “invested in upsetting vulnerable people”. While demanding that Fallon Fox is a woman, they offer precisely zero consideration for how vulnerable the women facing this person in the octagon are. The feelings of Fallon Fox are prioritised over the safety of women. It is not difficult to look at the short video clip of this bout below, and decide which person is Fallon; which person is Brents; and which person is most vulnerable in this situation.
A more recent development in this debate has been the tendency to adopt an especially cowardly cop out, which seeks to have it both ways. Some people will tell us that it is appalling behaviour for anyone to state that a man can’t transition into a woman, but of course when Karen White is in court or Fallon Fox is in the octagon then it is perfectly reasonable to point out that a man can’t transition into a woman. This position simply admits that gender ideology is nonsense, while continuing to scold others as if it were fact.
Personally, I prefer those who have the courage of their convictions. That is, those who insist that even a court of law must allow that anyone can be whatever gender they want to be, and those who might suggest otherwise should apologise for any such comments. There are even those who will insist that in female sports categories, anyone who suggests that trans identified men might have a physical advantage are misrepresenting reality.
It is much better that those with these views are open about them. It is preferable that we know who the people are that would tell a woman in the octagon with Fallon Fox; or a woman in a prison cell with Karen White; that they must just accept their predicament and shut up about it. Helpfully, we already have terms to describe the view that we must be more concerned with the feelings of Fallon Fox and Karen White in such circumstances, than the women who are actually the vulnerable parties in these contexts.