Here's something I've noticed about the trans people I encounter online. It's as if you're absolutely desperate to believe that everybody who sees the gaping logical inconsistencies within gender ideology is either fearful or, preferably, hateful. Maybe because if we don't hate you, if we're decent, thoughtful people who aren't the least bit bigoted, you might have to grapple with the fact that we have a point. The "monstering" of JK Rowling for crimes none of the people who hate her can articulate is a good example of this.

I don't hate or fear trans people in the least. I don't know a single "cis" person who is hateful of trans people (though I certainly wouldn't deny that these people exist). And as it applies to individuals I don’t care about defining “trans” at all. I’m not the tiniest bit interested in the infinite regression of words teenagers invent to describe how their “gender” feels that day. But as it applies to policy and laws, as it applies to the changes being demanded to women’s boundaries or the medicalisation of children, yes I think it matters.

I don't think minors should be having life-changing surgery or taking life-changing medications except in the most carefully assessed cases of need (please don’t “safe and reversible” me here, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are neither). I don't think we should redefine "woman" to include any male who says he is one without some simple, common sense safeguards. Safeguards that used to exist! I think, for example, that the legal definition of woman should unambiguously exclude me as I currently am. And it doesn't.

I also think you're demonstrably wrong when you say that what we're witenssing is a growth of the human experience. You think that after ~200,000 years we've figured out something new about the human experience?? Especially with regards to gender identity? What we're seeing now is the same stuff we've seen for thousands of years. Some of it dressed up in different clothes.

The rejection of gender norms isn't new. We've seen it in various cultures for thousands of years. I think this is unreservedly a good thing. And interestingly, in all those ancient cultures, whether the various two-spirit identities or the Muxe or the Hijras, they never lost track of what a woman was as they embraced these new identites.

Gender dysphoria isn't new. It's likely existed since the dawn of humanity. Even in the West, it's been recognised since the mid-1800s or so. And yet it's only since some bright spark decided that being a woman was entirely self-diagnosable by any man at any time, and needed to be immediately legally validated, that the issue of trans inclusion became controversial.

Kids grappling with their identity certainly isn't new. We've seen it with goths and hippies and punks. We see that in these groups, too, suicide ideation is far higher than normal for their age. Because children struggling with their identity will often gravitate towards a new "outsider" group and will often have higher rates of depression/anxiety/OCD. We used to support these kids whilst leaving them free to explore and figure themselves out as adults. Now we give them hormones and cut off their breasts.

But you know what is relatively new? The idea that men don't have to be "men" and women don't have to be "women." In the fifties, a boy would be called a girl as a pejorative if he liked flowers or dresses. Never mind if he was gay. Women weren't allowed to wear trousers, and certainly not to enter into "men's" professions. No women in the army, no women as CEOs, no women as the breadwinners in their families. Boys played with trucks and wore blue, girls played with dolls and wore pink. Girls were pretty and sparkly and soft. Boys liked "rough and tumble" games and "'took charge." Blah, blah, blah.

All of this was slowly changing. We were finally wrapping our collective heads around the fact that none of these things made you a man or a woman. You could just be yourself. And then, right on cue, gender ideology came along and taught kids those same regressive ideas all over again in new language.

And yes, funny you mention my piece, The Illusion of Blackness. I was chuckling to myself as I wrote it because of the similarities between this piece and that one. My point in both is that using a single word to provide cover for people whose intentions and actions are very different is a problem. It's funny that you don't see this. Consider this paragraph:

"But there are no gangsters in my community. There are no murderers on my team. I feel no solidarity with people who kill innocent black men, women and children, regardless of the colour of their skin."

The entire piece was saying that black people shouldn't be afraid to call these other black people out. That they harm our community and its acceptance. And that the idea that it's racist to talk honestly about them and the crimes they commit is ridiculous. It's you who is saying that it's transphobic to differentiate between perverts and fetishists and people like Nikkie de Jager. It's you who is searching for excuses to ignore the rapists seeking cover under the trans umbrella. If you understood that piece, you understand this one too. You’re just not thinking.