I'd be happy to consider compromise. I came into this debate five-ish years ago looking for compromise. I'd still like to compromise. But other than maybe preferred pronouns, I don't see any likely basis for it.
I suppose I could compromise on medicine: Let people do real research without fear of being canceled, and then go where the science leads us. If it leads us back to youth gender medicine, I can accept that.
Is the compromise here that governing bodies be allowed to make their own decisions? I can support that, as long as it's clear that governing bodies have the right to uphold sex segregation, including the legal protection to do so.
And I think this needs to be the case across all areas where sex is segregated.
And I think that in cases where the government itself is a governing body (public restrooms, for example), then the decision needs to be to uphold sex segregation in public policy.
Is there room for compromise there? I don't know. What I've described are my hard limits. Are they close enough to the other side for someone to meet me where I'm at?
A lot of things sound a bit wacky when they're not being properly researched. I'm always happy to compromise on more scientific investigation into the causes and treatments for gender dysphoria and related conditions, on the same basis as before: Do real science without fear of cancelation, and then go where it leads us.
Is cross-dressing an early indicator of possible gender dysphoria? Seems plausible. Maybe we need to do more research. Good research.
But I bet if it is, it's a lot like the DSM. People read a list of indicators for trained psychiatrists, and think that qualifies them to diagnose any mental disorder known to man. Sure, cross-dressing is probably an indicator of something, but that doesn't mean we should assume any kid we see in a long-haired wig is about to go full trans. Maybe it just means they'll be a turbo theater kid in high school.
www.hrc.org
