the LGB vs. the TQ+
Back when sexual orientation was a bigger deal, before the US Supreme Court recognized the rights to same-sex sex and same-sex marriage, one of the bigoted claims against gays and lesbians was that we were trying to recruit children into our "diseased" lifestyle.
But gays, lesbians, and bisexuals could credibly argue that we were fighting for our rights as adults to live the same as other adults -- that adults can freely consent to same-sex sex or same-sex marriage.
In 2024, the issue of children and transgender identities is a more difficult issue, because the LGBTQ+ communities often take the position that children should have the right to gender-affirming care, even if their parents do not consent. The charge that we are trying to recruit children into transgender lifestyles is far more credible now, than the charge that we are trying to recruit children into same-sex sex.
Those who oppose transgender identity expression do not always focus only on children. But the focus on children is provoking debate among people who would otherwise support adult LGBTQ+ identity expression.
Everybody knows that we have legal age requirements for sex, driving, voting, drinking, smoking, paid labor, serving in the military, viewing porn, signing contracts, and so forth. These age requirements are rarely controversial. Parental consent is a valued right and responsibility. But the LGBTQ+ communities typically resist applying legal age requirements to gender-affirming care, and resist requiring parental consent for such care. A typical scare story spread by Republicans is that of schools keeping a child's gender transition secret from the child's parents.
Some LGBTQ+ people and their allies support a sort of identity fundamentalism, that any person at any age can adopt any identity and their identity must not be questioned by anybody. Whereas I support a form of identity libertarianism with respect to adults, that adults should be free to adopt any identity they want, but that others are free to either respect that identity or not. In other words, I support free speech, free thought, free debate, and free association for adults. If you want to identify as a transgender woman, great. But if a social group wants to include only biological sex females, thereby excluding transgender women, I support their right to include and exclude based on their own criteria.
With respect to employment, government services, housing, medical services, and such, I oppose discrimination based on identity.
Regarding children, my wish would be that we could democratically arrive at a compromise age after which a person may receive gender-affirming care without parental consent, but before that age a person would require parental consent. Perhaps that age would be 18, but as usual our legislatures would hold hearings and experts would opine and we'd see where things shake out in various states.
As for a child adopting an identity, I don't see how we could police that. A child can say she's a girl or he's a boy or they're nonbinary and what are you going to do about it. But the provision of gender-affirming care is different from adopting an identity. And, as I wrote above, I'm an identity libertarian -- you may adopt whatever identity you want, but you can't force everybody else to respect that identity. So, your school may still identify you as a boy, your parents may still identify you as a girl, and so on.
This is a nuanced position that tries to balance the rights and responsibilities of all the people living together in our society. But I know there will still be fundamentalists on all sides -- those who absolutely deny transgender identities, and those who wish to impose their identity paradigms on everybody else. That's just human nature.
But gays, lesbians, and bisexuals could credibly argue that we were fighting for our rights as adults to live the same as other adults -- that adults can freely consent to same-sex sex or same-sex marriage.
In 2024, the issue of children and transgender identities is a more difficult issue, because the LGBTQ+ communities often take the position that children should have the right to gender-affirming care, even if their parents do not consent. The charge that we are trying to recruit children into transgender lifestyles is far more credible now, than the charge that we are trying to recruit children into same-sex sex.
Those who oppose transgender identity expression do not always focus only on children. But the focus on children is provoking debate among people who would otherwise support adult LGBTQ+ identity expression.
Everybody knows that we have legal age requirements for sex, driving, voting, drinking, smoking, paid labor, serving in the military, viewing porn, signing contracts, and so forth. These age requirements are rarely controversial. Parental consent is a valued right and responsibility. But the LGBTQ+ communities typically resist applying legal age requirements to gender-affirming care, and resist requiring parental consent for such care. A typical scare story spread by Republicans is that of schools keeping a child's gender transition secret from the child's parents.
Some LGBTQ+ people and their allies support a sort of identity fundamentalism, that any person at any age can adopt any identity and their identity must not be questioned by anybody. Whereas I support a form of identity libertarianism with respect to adults, that adults should be free to adopt any identity they want, but that others are free to either respect that identity or not. In other words, I support free speech, free thought, free debate, and free association for adults. If you want to identify as a transgender woman, great. But if a social group wants to include only biological sex females, thereby excluding transgender women, I support their right to include and exclude based on their own criteria.
With respect to employment, government services, housing, medical services, and such, I oppose discrimination based on identity.
Regarding children, my wish would be that we could democratically arrive at a compromise age after which a person may receive gender-affirming care without parental consent, but before that age a person would require parental consent. Perhaps that age would be 18, but as usual our legislatures would hold hearings and experts would opine and we'd see where things shake out in various states.
As for a child adopting an identity, I don't see how we could police that. A child can say she's a girl or he's a boy or they're nonbinary and what are you going to do about it. But the provision of gender-affirming care is different from adopting an identity. And, as I wrote above, I'm an identity libertarian -- you may adopt whatever identity you want, but you can't force everybody else to respect that identity. So, your school may still identify you as a boy, your parents may still identify you as a girl, and so on.
This is a nuanced position that tries to balance the rights and responsibilities of all the people living together in our society. But I know there will still be fundamentalists on all sides -- those who absolutely deny transgender identities, and those who wish to impose their identity paradigms on everybody else. That's just human nature.