I was struck by the letter (Gender-critical women have a right to be heard, 16 September) responding to Susanna Rustin’s article, and while I disagree with the letter writer’s stances, I do share their desire for this issue to become detoxified for all. So, in the spirt of polite debate, I wish to take issue with the points raised.
Most trans people do not see gender-critical women as “horrible bigots” but do feel that their stance, regardless of intention, does serve to discriminate against us. By attempting to restrict us from spaces/activities we have used for decades without issue does result in discrimination and marginalises us from society.
The other issues they present are highly complicated, so shouldn’t be reduced to a basic good/bad stance. Any blanket approach to medical care, whether it is cessation or unrestricted to what should be tailored medicine will cause considerable suffering. The same goes for sport; there is little recorded evidence of danger to women when including trans women, nor would this “danger” explain enthusiastic bans in non-contact sports such as swimming, running or, of all things, chess.
As for genetics, while it may be the case that chromosomes can’t be altered, sex characteristics, however, certainly can. Stating that issues such as this are “scientific fact” is disingenuous, and to what end? We don’t exist in society manifesting our chromosomes, so insisting on of social policy based entirely on them could be seen as prejudiced if not backed up anything more substantial.
Nevertheless, we agree discourse must calm down. People should not be arrested, face job loss, or be excluded for what they say, or who they are, even if egregious. I deplore that this happens to trans people just as much that it happens to gender-critical people. I believe we all have the best interests at heart for all people, and none of us are trying to make them worse. It is this sentiment that we should assume of those we disagree with.
Name and address supplied
