A few days ago, I wrote something optimistic about the incoming administration, suggesting that they might actually be governing, something that I approve of. I also noted that, regardless of whether or not I agree with them, the fact that they are governing is, in itself, a good thing.
And then, Wes Streeting came along.
Now, before I continue, I will freely admit that, when it comes to medical science, I know almost as much as I know about the tactics of lacrosse, or oceanic navigation. What I do have though, is a set of liberal principles that guide my approach. They may not be your liberal principles, but still.
I belong to a political party which has taken a stance on trans rights. It's a stance that I'm comfortable with, on the basis that I firmly believe that people should be free so long as, in exercising that freedom, they don't inhibit the freedom of others*. And given that I believe that people should be judged on the basis of their behaviour rather than on a generalist fear of "others", you might not be surprised to hear that I fundamentally disagree with some of the arguments offered by so-called "gender criticals".
But I don't have obvious skin in the game. I'm a man. And, given that almost the entire debate on trans issues revolves around male to female transition, the idea that I might somehow feel uncomfortable around trans men seems absurd. On the other hand, I'm a minority, and the concerns of any minority group should at the very least engage my attention. Is the inherent logic of the arguments used to repress them likely to be used on others at some point? On me?
So, over the years, I've paid attention. I've been horrified to watch as access to treatment has been effectively withdrawn from people who suffer as what they know to be true about themselves is denied, leaving them tormented. I read the statistics on suicide rates in the trans community, especially amongst teenagers, and despair that their lives have been shortened due to political decisions rather than medical ones. It is, effectively, a political choice to deny freedom.
The decision to place a blanket ban on the prescribing of puberty blockers for under-18s - which strikes me as an effective "across the board" ban - in cases where gender dysphoria is a possibility without provision for some proper research strikes me as being a political decision rather than a medical one. It feels like a decision made with one eye on the right-wing media rather than on the needs of a group of individuals who have to live with the consequences.
There are very good grounds for the funding of research, should a minister feels that they require reassurance. But by applying a presumption that the current treatment is too dangerous to be permitted, pain and suffering is caused to those who want treatment and who, in all likelihood, will have jumped through a series of hoops and suffered psychologically even to get to the point where they might be considered for that treatment. It is then not unreasonable to ask why a politician feels the need to act, and who they have consulted before making such a choice.
But if someone wants to proceed with a course of treatment in full knowledge of the risks, and a trained medical professional agrees after due consideration, I don't believe that politicians should interfere. Indeed, we will have created a situation where the right to treatment is limited to those who have the personal means to override the legal restrictions here, hardly an endorsement of the principle of equality of opportunity.
A number of Liberal Democrat MPs have already gone public with their opposition to the ban on puberty blockers, and have taken a fair amount of abuse for doing so, including from some within our own Party. It would be easier, undoubtedly, to "walk by on the other side of the road". They will have their own reasons for taking such a stance, which might not be entirely the same in each case. But I admire their willingness to take a clear stance. It is one of the reasons why I have broken my public silence on the subject. And, indeed, if I were in their shoes, I'd vote as they apparently intend to do.
I don't claim to be an ally. Indeed, I am mildly distrustful of some who claim to be an ally, as I tend to think that it's for others to award that epithet. And I'm never going to be someone for whom trans rights are anything more than a facet of my liberalism. It isn't personal to me. But justice and freedom are universal values, or they are nothing.
* It's more complex than that, but if I expanded upon the basic argument, we'd be here all day.
The effects of puberty on the skeleton can be particularly distressing and difficult or impossible to reverse. If most of those who were on puberty blockers would go on to transition, the interventions to correct other pubertal issue are somewhat risky, so the idea that Mr Streeting's motive is to "keep children safe" is incredible.
ReplyDelete