An unstoppable slippery slope?

(Is the widespread acceptance of gender transformation inevitable?)

For some of us, it feels like society is on the proverbial ‘slippery slope’. One social change follows another, follows another. We ask ourselves – will it ever stop? Is the widespread acceptance of gender transformation inevitable? And if so, what comes after that? Others see it differently – they see progress in compassion and awareness. Still others see some combination of the both.

Is there a series of social changes that are best understood as part of one larger trend? Yes – I believe there is a trend.

We could start further back, but I will start with no-fault divorce. Before 1975, in Australia, you had to prove that someone had done something wrong inside a marriage to warrant divorce – someone had to be at fault. A ‘no-fault’ divorce clause meant that either party could apply, citing irreconcilable differences, and the divorce would be granted.

Underneath this sits a change of assumptions. The rights of the individual are more important than a couple, and the individual is the basic building block of society, not the family. These changes are part of the wider shift in which Western culture is abandoning its Christian heritage, and embracing a post-Christian worldview with post-Christian beliefs and values.

Since no-fault divorce, we have seen legislation that allows individuals the right to abortion, the right to same-sex marriage, and the right to die. These social changes are an outworking of the assumption that I have the right to make choices about myself, and others cannot stop me.

Given our culture’s new shared values, is the acceptance of gender transformation inevitable? As I interpret the signs of the times, I suggest the answer is proving uncertain. The widespread acceptance of gender transformation may not be inevitable. We may be reaching the edge of this particular ‘slope’.

What social evidence? The resistance against wide spread gender transformation is coming from several fronts. It comes from the social conservatives, Christians, Muslims, and more collectivist and non-individualist cultures. These opponents are expected. For the most part, this conglomeration opposed same-sex marriage in Australia, without success. Alone, they are likely incapable of stopping the widespread acceptance and support of gender transformation.

But they are not alone. There are other groups of surprising allies who do not wish to normalise gender transformation – even if they are not against it in some instances. A clergy friend of mine enrolled his child in a state primary school in a progressive state. His five-year-old daughter was exposed to repeated messages about how she was essentially a being with a sexual identity, who had the right to choose their gender. He raised his concerns about whether this teaching was age appropriate and hyper-sexualised.

To his surprise, his greatest allies were lesbian feminists. They too, believed such conversations were premature in infant and lower primary school. They too, questioned the narrow focus of identity as primarily sexual. Other prominent women like J.K. Rowling and Germaine Greer oppose various elements of the gender transformation agenda.

There are other pockets of resistance. In sports, some oppose the inclusion of gender-transitioned persons in female sports as unfair. In the UK and some Scandinavian countries, gender affirming care is being wound back. Some medical practitioners do not agree that early intervention in all cases where requested represents the best patient care. In Australia, one medical insurer has just ceased to offer cover to doctors who initiate hormone treatment. Some patients who have undergone reassignment intervention subsequently claim that the medical practitioners failed to provide a duty of care, and seek reversal or damages.

These ‘opponents’ do not necessarily share all the same reservations. Some oppose because they see gender transformation as unnatural. Others oppose because they see it as undermining the essence of the existing genders. Some argue human identity is not essentially or exclusively sexual. Still others argue that social contagion explains the sudden rise of younger (often anxious) persons seeking intervention.

What we are seeing here is a values clash. The strongest advocates for gender transformation are confident that we know ourselves, we have a right to choose, we make choices free from the influence of others, and we make the best choices for ourselves.

Those who disagree need only question one of the above values to arrive at a different conclusion. Maybe we aren’t always experts on ourselves. People self-diagnose allergies – some get it right, and some get it wrong. Maybe adolescents and anxious teenagers don’t fully understand themselves. Maybe they don’t always make the best choices. Maybe some decisions can wait. Maybe we are more influenced by social trends than we imagine. Maybe the values we share as a collective sometimes outweigh the individual’s right to choose (e.g. I must wear a seat-belt when driving). Maybe our limited medical dollar can be better spent for the wider public good.

Within this wider group of ‘opponents’, many will acknowledge that, at an individual level, some persons genuinely experience a biologically explainable gender dysphoria – but they still oppose the widespread normalisation and acceptance of gender transformation as the mainstream intervention. 

When a culture experiences a values clash, it suggests we are reaching the edge of our shared clarity about our values. Like it or not, we are not unwinding no fault divorce or the right to abortion in Australia. The assumptions that underwrite these conclusions are sufficiently shared and not in dispute. This may not be the case with gender transformation. We maybe, just maybe, reaching the edge of the slope of where our new post-Christian values are taking us. This maybe a debate that will continue for some time. If so, I hope we can have this discussion with civility, mutual respect, and open ears.