Several jurisdictions in the United States are proposing to limit or are actually limiting the rights of people who self-identify as transsexual.  Explicit displays of trans identity (such as readings by drag queens) are the subject of criticism, protest and sometimes legislation.  Anti-trans feelings are present in Canada as well but the only legislation passed has been in support of trans rights, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of gender identity or expression.  Nonetheless there have been vociferous protests against trans activities in Canada as well.

Why do people oppose transgender rights – and oppose them so strongly?

To start: think of how many of us grew up.  In the past, it was indisputable that there were only two genders; that was agreed by religions, governments, schools, community associations, all reinforced by advertising.  So, for people of a certain age, the idea of transgender was virtually unknown.  If ever it was mentioned, it was presented as something alien and prurient.

Traditional Abrahamic religions are not tolerant of trans people, or their practices and beliefs.  This intolerance probably relates to strict interpretations of religious texts, which emphasize binary gender categories.  However, there are some more accepting Abrahamic religions.  In Buddhism and Hinduism, trans is completely accepted.  Other religions accept a third gender and more generally the idea of trans.

To many, trans is more dangerous than gay.  Sexual orientation is generally expressed discretely; it makes no demands on those of heterosexual or other orientation.  But trans can be visible in public life; acceptance of trans culture in many cases demands we alter our social behaviours: pronouns and washrooms are examples.

As an emerging and growing social phenomenon, trans can be seen as a threat to the existing social structure.  In some cultures, certainly in parts of North America, trans is associated with promiscuity and the collapse of conventional sexual morality, just as gay culture was as it emerged.  Fears of children being enticed into non-birth genders are quite prevalent.  As well, there are concerns that those with traditional gender and orientation beliefs will be in a minority.

Valid or not, there are many reasons why people might be concerned about the expansion of trans numbers and rights.  In summary, there are concerns about: the pace of cultural change; the challenge to the previous social order; religious doctrine; language and civic requirements.  In themselves, none of those concerns represents bigotry.  However, this is a conflict between traditional social/cultural/religious beliefs and practices on the one hand, and core human rights on the other.

There can be no coherent moral objection to people choosing the gender within which they are most comfortable.  There is no necessary harm to others in such a choice, and probable benefit to the person making the choice.  Gender identity is a human right, as asserted in the Ontario Human Rights Code 6.3: “…. every person has the right to define their own gender identity. A person’s self-defined gender identity is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom”.  The federal Human Rights Act has been amended (Bill C-16) to add “gender identity or expression” to the list of grounds upon which discriminatory practices may be based.

While it is morally defensible that human rights take precedence over societal practices and religious requirements, practical implementation requires a change from decades of European and American cultural practice and history.  In my view, it is premature and callous to condemn those who find such changes difficult to accept; they have rights themselves.  There is a sort of social contract for behaviour in contemporary American and European society; the social and cultural norms of decades cannot reasonably be overturned in a few years.

Consider the use of pronouns.  We can accept that binary gender designations are inadequate, if not inaccurate, to describe trans persons.  However, the insistence on “they / them” for trans people replaces inaccuracy in gender description with ambiguity in numerical description.  I would propose a new word be introduced which identifies a trans gender without numerical ambiguity.  Linguists and lexicographers would be more skilled than I in finding the word, but I would offer for the sake of discussion an adaptation of the Latin this/that, i.e.: “hoc / haec”.  The point made here is that trans rights can be recognized without weakening the intelligibility of conversation.

Consider the use of public washrooms.  Some institutions (e.g. many universities) have already resolved this by making washrooms unisex.  However, the rights of trans to use the washroom appropriate to their self-defined gender needs to be balanced against the rights of binary gender persons to feel safe and secure in a public washroom.  Feeling uneasy or unsafe about trans access does not make that person a bigot.   That said, it is unfortunate that many make the assumption that trans persons would behave inappropriately in a public washroom.

Consider the matter of sports.  I start with the proposition: “Gender identity can be chosen; biological gender cannot be chosen”.  Biological males have significant physical differences from biological females.  Such differences are not erased by gender self-identification, nor by surgical alterations.  Since physical strength is a significant factor in many sports, it is legitimate to insist that birth biological gender be the primary determinant of eligibility to play in a gender group.  Perhaps it would be worth exploring, however, whether trans sport could be developed as its own class.

Youth gender identity is probably the most sensitive issue of all.  We are becoming more aware of gender dysphoria among young people.  It is unclear to me whether gender dysphoria is becoming more prevalent among young people, or whether we are just more sensitive and tolerant to its expression.  It seems a reasonable principle that young people should be allowed to express their gender identity as they experience it.  That certainly includes dress and the use of pronouns.  But it is far from an absolute right.  To me it does not follow from that right of social and cultural expression that a young person could choose to make irrevocable decisions about the physical expression of their gender identity.  18 is the age of majority for other gender-related rules (e.g., sex with minors, acts of marriage), so I suggest the same age requirement.  This will cause some hurt to those who feel quite out of place in their biological body, but such a life-altering decision requires a degree of maturity.

I believe society can make a peaceful transition to greater acceptance of trans people in our lives and activities.  It will require patience and tolerance as new ideas and practices are accepted in our culture.  But there is no good reason why we should not make the transition.