Written by Eliza Mondegreen
Earlier this year, there was a transgender rights protest in California.
What a month can accomplish. In fact, 2023 appears to be a moving place for the transgender movement in the UK, but is it possible that the US will experience the same thing in 2024?
This month, The New York Times reported that “some of the most divisive issues in the nation will occupy the goals of state legislatures this year, with debates over gender top and center.” 22 states have so far outlawed at least some medical and/or pharmaceutical interventions for young people who are experiencing gender distress, though many of these prohibitions have not yet taken effect. The problem may be brought ever-closer to the Supreme Court case by ongoing legal challenges in numerous states.
The US is beginning to resemble a patchwork quilt of states where children’s transition is prohibited and self-described “sanctuary states” that make it simple for young people to transition. Where one lives will determine whether they have access to adolescence blockers, hormones, and surgeries; a small number of colored states are likely to be uninterested in either direction.
However, bans—even those that are subject to legal action—are also messaging products. Some will seize the chance to look more closely, while some members of the public may react predictably partisanally, lining up for or against the restrictions without bothering to weigh the issues at stake. Many people who do so won’t like what they see. Trans campaigners themselves have always been the main public opponents of the trans action, especially when their needs conflict with those of other groups like women and children in terms of interests, needs, and rights. As public attention grows, that trend will only pick up speed.
In the US, public support for controversial agenda items like youth gender transition and exposure to single-sex places and activities is fast declining. Experts bemoaned the fact that “general society” is unwilling to grant trans people more rights. However, the public appears to be rejecting the risks to security, fairness, and moral medical practice that an uncontrolled movement demands, not “more rights” for transgender people. Being expected to put up with nonsense may make people who are accepting of difference shudder.
It seems increasingly likely that common sense will eventually win out. A troubled teen who cannot be trusted to get a tattoo is apparently given the right to choose her sex and have her breasts amputated, which is infuriating, as is the sight of the man on the podium in the women’s biking race.
A remarkable strategic document from a number of years ago revealed that activists had often explicitly avoided the common understanding of trans issues. Politicians preferred to work behind closed doors, secretly lobbying politicians, supporting more well-liked causes like gay marriage and pregnancy rights, and avoiding media scrutiny, rather than concentrating on winning hearts and minds by educating and persuading the public.
The US will probably process litigation much more litigiously than the UK. The judges may end up playing a major role in changing legislation and raising public awareness of the issues gender identity raises around issues like safeguarding vulnerable individuals and ensuring justice in activity, from cases brought by detransitioners to female athletes.
Social grandstanding will be widespread, especially in light of the February presidential primary. Liberals will struggle, as so many UK politicians have, to strike a balance between the demands of their advocate base and the need to avoid appearing insane but nearer to Election Day. Republicans will capitalize on the issue.
However, even in such a divided nation, perhaps there is some common ground. Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio vetoed a bill last week that would have prohibited gender-affirming care for minors. “Today could actually be a win if your goals are these: Ending health shifts in minors AND adult care that is careful, controlled and requires psychological health oversight,” said Jamie Reed, a leak from the gender clinic at St. Louis Children’s Hospital.
In addition to his veto, DeWine announced administrative policy changes that Reed believes the majority of “reasonable people can agree on,” such as gathering information on all patients seeking transition and their outcomes, mandating mental healthcare for both young and old people, and banning providers who do not provide this care.
Basic information about the treatments being used and how people progress over time should be clarified by these actions, two issues that have been gravely ignored up until now. The open discussion may then shift from political point-scoring to the more subdued subject of medical ethics and evidence-based investigation.