Conversations with people online can be frustrating at the best of times, but they're especially frustrating with people who are obviously reasonable but with whom I disagree. It's pretty much impossible to adequately express our points of view and deal with the nuances of our positions in this format. And I'd like to. I think we agree on a lot and the things we disagree about would be really useful to get to the bottom of. I wish we could talk in person.

Anyway, I don't think semantics are just games either. I just think that too much trans activism, especially online, centres on semantic games. Trans women are not women in the sense that humanity has defined "woman" for thousands of years. How acknowledging this simple fact became a litmus test for whether you support trans people or not, I will never understand. The kathoey in Thailand, the muxe in Mexico, the various identities under the two-spirit umbrella, none of them claim to be women. Not because women are the holders and keepers of femininity, not because their identities don't deserve to be respected and taken seriously, but because words mean things.

In fact, this is why the completely innocuous question "what is a woman" has become so contentious.

I wouldn't claim to have zero bias, of course. But that's not what being transphobic is. Or if it is, the word has no meaning. Same with racist. If we conflate everybody who has any degree of unconscious bias with bigots, then a) everybody is a bigot which is silly, and b) we therefore lose the ability to talk about bigotry in any meaningful way. I support trans people's right to live with dignity and free from violence, abuse and discrimination. I support trans people's right to free, safe, and effective healthcare. I believe respecting trans people’s identity is a minimum level of respect that everybody deserves.

But I also have caveats.

I think placing children on a medications whose long term effects are poorly researched (but from what we do know are not trivial (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/well/family/what-are-puberty-blockers.html)), based on feelings they have when they're very young, is something that should be done with great care. Not denied, done with care. I don't see anybody within the trans community advocating for that care. There are many cases of children being given puberty blockers very shortly after first questioning their gender identity and regardless of any other issues the child might be facing. This is especially significant given that, from everything I've read (http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html - I have this link to hand, but everything else I've ever read corroborates it), the great majority of gender dysphoric kids become non-dysphoric gay or lesbian teenagers post-puberty.

I think that in almost all areas of life, how somebody identifies is more important than any other factor for how they're treated. But sport, and certain aspects of the legal system, are notable exceptions. That's not to say that trans people should be excluded from or discriminated against in these areas, but to say that biology is a bigger factor than identity in these cases, and we need to have a mature, good-faith conversation about that fact. I'm not sure that this is an "existential danger" to women's sport. But I don't think the impact is trivial either.

(By the way, I wasn't suggesting that trans women have an asterisk by their names, I'm suggesting that trans women and trans men have their achievements classified by their gender identity. I'm still not sure what the problem with having a legitimate, ratified trans women's world record is.)

One of the reasons I follow TaraElla is that she consistently seeks out understanding and nuance. This is sadly missing on both sides of this discussion. I don't know if you do talk publicly about these issues, but I'd like to read more of your thoughts if you decide to.