I've been wondering why trans rights activists (TRAs) are so slippery in arguments, and it's because they are constantly switching the root of their philosophy from Medical to Spiritual and back.

Some (incomplete) definitions:

THE MEDICAL ARGUMENT: Gender dysphoria is a real, diagnosable condition. Social and surgical transition can help alleviate gender dysphoria. As gender stems from sex, total physical transition is the goal. Children with this condition should be given different care than adults with fully developed brains and bodies.

THE SPIRITUAL ARGUMENT: Gender is an innate element of your humanity that can be observed only by you, from early childhood. Therefore your gender is always valid, because only you truly know how you feel inside. Your gender is an unverifiable claim and society has to take your word on it. Your gender is not bound by your physical body (sex) or even how you socially present yourself, it is an immutable truth.

THE PROBLEM: these two arguments contradict each other. We see this when trans people fight amongst themselves and label each other "truscum" (believe in the medical argument) or "tucutes/transtrenders" (believe in the spiritual argument). They disagree on...

• What makes someone trans: medical says it's gender dysphoria, spiritual says it's feeling trans
• How trans people should fit into society: medical says it's to attempt to pass as the opposite sex, spiritual says no obligations to pass and acceptance should be mandatory
• The reality of sex: medical is based on sex as the root of gender, thus transition is necessary. Spiritual says sex is irrelevant or not a biological fact at all

I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course some issues they'll agree on (eg pronouns are important) but they'll have different reasons for agreeing on it (medical says wrong pronouns trigger dysphoria, making it a harmful act, but spiritual says it's a sign of disrespect and invalidates identity, making it a philosophical insult).

The bottom line is, logically, is that GENDER CAN'T BE BOTH A MEDICAL AND A SPIRITUAL CONDITION. Once a problem is declared medical (eg diagnosed schizophrenia) it can't be spiritual (oh wait, maybe the angels really are talking to this person whose MRI shows a schizophrenic brain).

And once a practice is spiritual, we can't medicalise it. That's why we're not diagnosing every religious person with schizophrenia because they believe in God, even though we have no evidence that God is real. Spirituality is protected in its own way as a human right.

And now we get to the meat of the problem: rights rights rights.

MEDICAL RIGHTS VS SPIRITUAL RIGHTS: The huge issue in these arguments is that they are demanding different things of society at large.

If trans is a medical issue, they have the right to healthcare and accomodations like any other illness.

If trans is a spiritual issue, they have the right to freedom of religion.

BUT THE TRANS MOVEMENT REFUSES TO ADMIT BOTH MEDICAL AND SPIRITUAL ARGUMENTS HAVE LIMITS.

MEDICAL LIMITS: if gender dysphoria is a real diagnosis, then not everyone will fit the criteria. A doctor decides if you're trans, not you. Self diagnosis is invalid and self medication is dangerous. Some people might be misdiagnosed, making transition the wrong treatment for them. Treatment should be evidence based, ethical, proven safe and effective, which takes time. Studies must be done on correct treatments, and when results show some treatments are doing more harm than good, they should be discontinued. A doctor decides what treatment will be offered, not you. Like all mental illnesses, society should be informed and taught to be respectful, however the ultimate onus is on the patient to learn to adapt and function within society.

SPIRITUAL LIMITS: If trans is based on belief and unverifiable claims, then it is basically religious. You are free to practice your beliefs through dress, rituals, community etc, but you have no right to compel others to participate in your religion. In countries with separation of church and state, you cannot lobby to make your religion into law and compel people to behave in accordance with your beliefs, or seek to override evidence-based education with your religious beliefs. It is also unethical for doctors to perform body modifications that will impair your health for no medical reason, even if your religion says you need hormones and surgeries.

THE INEVITABLE FAILURE OF TRANS ARGUMENTS

We already saw TRAs take a huge blow in the UK since the "born in the wrong body" narrative is officially out of schools. People are realising "born in the wrong body" was not a medical claim, but a spiritual one.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Soon more of these demands will be exposed as spiritual claims masquerading as medical claims. And the clever part is they start with medical claims and expand them to spiritual claims.

Trans women exist = medical claim

Trans women are women = spiritual claim

The medical claim gives legitimacy, the spiritual part expands the scope and power of the claim. When someone disagrees with TWAW, a slick TRA will come back with "Oh so you don't think trans women exist? So you don't believe in facts???"

Being allergic to nuance is a prerequisite for TRAs because their fundamental philosophy is flawed. They are seeking medical AND THEREFORE LEGAL legitimacy with spiritual claims.

Look at the argument for TW in single-sex spaces:

• TRA: Trans women exist! Gender dysphoria is a medical condition!
• GC: Okay
• TRA: Trans women are women!
• GC: You can believe that, but I don't have to
• TRA: Trans women are women and belong in women's shelters! Prisons! Refuges!
• GC: Wait but wouldn't criminal men pretend to be trans women to get access to these spaces?
• TRAs: There's no such thing as a fake trans woman!
• GC: But gender dysphoria is a medical condition?
• TRAs: Yes! We're so real! All of us!
• GC: But this person says they have no dysphoria, he just like dresses... why should we let him in a women's prison?
• TRAs: All trans women are valid! Some trans women are criminals, just like cis women!
• GC: But if dysphoria is a medical diagnosis, by definition there are some criteria to be met
• TRAs: Yes! We're real! In medical journals!
• GC: And if someone doesn't meet the criteria, but they call themselves trans, they're by definition invalid as a trans person
• TRAs: No! All trans women are valid!
• GC: You started by saying trans women are real because dysphoria is a diagnosis, now you're saying the diagnosis doesn't matter, so which is it?
• TRAs: It matters because we're real and it doesn't matter because we're real!
• GC: So if dysphoria diagnosis doesn't prove you're real, what does?
• TRAs: Feeling trans is being trans!
• GC: So we should base laws on your feelings?
• TRAs: Trans women are facts! You agreed! It's a medical condition! Trans women are real!
• GC: We agreed trans people's existence is a fact, but every trans person's unverifiable validity isn't a fact, it's a feeling. We can't leave such a huge loophole in allowing access to vulnerable women's spaces -
• TRA: TRANSPHOBE! TRANSPHOBE! TRANSPHOBE!

This argument starts off as medical, then switches to spiritual, and falls back on medical when the spiritual aspect gets too abstract and hard to verify. That's why these arguments are often unproductive.

The trans demands being debated across the world affect all of us. Whatever your politics, it's important to recognise a bad argument, and call it out when you see it.

Next time you see an argument for trans demands, dig in and ask yourself: is this claim medical, spiritual, or an illogical combination of the two?

(Please feel free to copy and share as widely as you like!)