Trump and the inherent complexities of the trans question

The former President gave a rambling answer that some conservatives saw as less than optimal, but the real question is what can the government and the free citizens of a Republic do about a complex, controversial topic that cannot simply be wished away with simple statements? 

Last week, former President Donald Trump appeared to give a vague answer to a direct question about whether a man can become a woman in an interview with Megyn Kelly.  Ms. Kelly prompted the conversation by noting that President Trump had previously allowed Caitlyn Jenner to use the women’s bathroom at Trump Tower and that biological men were allowed to compete in the Miss Universe competition when he was an owner.   “A lot has changed since 2016,” Ms. Kelly noted.  “Have you?”  After declaring “I have,” the former President meandered at times throughout the rest of his answer.  First, he explained that he personally knew Ms. Jenner, then that these issues in general were new at the time.  “This was brand new, this was a brand new subject also, it hadn’t exploded, no one talked about it really.  They’re saying what do you think, yes use, no use.”  The former President also noted that he banned transgender in the military while in office even as he acknowledged Ms. Jenner’s choice of gender.  “I’m the one that wouldn’t allow it in the military, that was a big move, I was the one that wouldn’t allow it…it’s a very hard subject.  I ended it in the military.”  To support his reasoning, President Trump mentioned, “Part of the problem is you’d have to take massive amounts of drugs, and in the military you’re not allowed to take drugs, and you have to take massive amounts of drugs.  So right there, it should not be allowed…No matter what you do there, you’re going to take massive amounts of heat.”  Ms. Kelly pressed the former President further, asking if he would allow biological men to use the restroom of their choosing today.  “How do you feel about it now?  Should biological men who say that they’re trans use women’s restrooms and women’s locker rooms, women’s prisons, women’s spaces?”  The President replied, somewhat roundabout, “My stance on that is really pretty much what I had in the military.”   “So, no?”  She questioned, again.  “Yeah, that’s my stance, that’s really been my stance,” but then he returned to the topic of Caitlyn Jenner,  suggesting his feelings were not entirely straightforward.  “I mean, I’ve allowed Caitlyn.  Caitlyn’s Caitlyn, right?  I knew Caitlyn as Bruce.  I knew Bruce and you know Bruce was a great athlete, a very handsome person, a very handsome guy, and all of a sudden Bruce is Caitlyn, and I said, ‘What’s this all about?’  This was a brand new subject too, just like we talk about the pandemic, you know the pandemic was a subject that no one knew anything about.  It was all early, you make a decision and you make the decision very strongly.”  Ms. Kelly acknowledged that her opinion has also changed over the past few years, and then asked the former President if he had changed as well.  The President said yes at first, but further clarified, “I don’t think I’ve changed, I think I’ve just, you know, at the beginning it was such a small subject, nobody really thought about it, but then you know with time you change.  Where I probably took the hardest line was on the military.”

As the conversation continued, Ms. Kelly proceeded to clarify a few of President Trump’s current positions.  First, on the use of puberty blockers and other “gender affirming” care for children.  “Should children be provided access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones?”  She asked, directly.  “I’m so against it,” the former President responded, equally direct.  “First of all, many of them, I heard like 62%, when they grow up, when they’re older, they’re saying who did this to me, why did you do this to me.  Second of all, the parents have to make the decision.  You know, they’re trying to give it to school boards and schools and things to make a decision, it’s unbelievable…You know, I talk about mutilation sometimes in my speeches.  We will stop the mutilation of children, and then I’ll stop and I’ll say to the people in the audience, I’ll say, can you imagine that I’m talking about, we’re gonna stop mutilation of children, but that’s what it is. It’s the mutilation of children and we will stop the mutilation of children.  Ten years ago, you wouldn’t, nobody would even think of it.  I am telling people as a politician, as somebody that represents a lot of people, I’m telling people that we’re gonna stop the mutilation of children, who would have to say a thing like that, you’d think it was automatic.”  Ms. Kelly responded by asking if he would support a ban on procedures for minors, and the former President said yes.  Lastly, she asked, openly, “Can a man become a woman?”  Here, the president thought for a moment, chuckled a little uncomfortably, but then replied, “In my opinion, you have a man, you have a woman, I think part of it is birth, can the man give birth? No, although they will come up with some answer to that also some day.   I heard just the other day, they have a way now, the man can give birth.  I would say, I’ll continue my stance on that.”  Despite voicing clear opposition to transgender in the military and potentially other areas of public life and women’s spaces, a ban on “gender affirming” care for minors, and stating his personal belief that a man cannot become a woman, some conservatives were less than pleased with these responses.  Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida and his chief opponent in the Republican primary responded the following evening.  He didn’t mention President Trump by name, but noted, “Don’t tell me a man can become a woman because it’s not true.”  The conservative website, HotAir.com, covered the small controversy this way.  “Ron DeSantis and some never-Trump critics have been ‘pouncing’ on Donald Trump this week after the former president gave a rather stumbling answer on the question of transgenderism during an interview with Megyn Kelly on Thursday night.”  The author, Jazz Shaw, continued, “In the end, Trump never actually said that he believes a man can become a woman or vice versa. But he was very roundabout in how he tackled the question, leaving room for criticism. His comment about hearing that doctors were figuring out a way for men to get pregnant was probably intended as a joke, but it opened the door to more criticism from conservatives.”

The question is:  What are we to make of this?  Is the former President wrong for giving a “rambling” answer filled with what we may call nuance about Caitlyn Jenner, nuance he is certainly not known for in other areas?  Are other conservatives right that there is a much simpler answer, that is simply that a man cannot become a woman or vice versa?  At the risk of angering my fellow conservatives who side with Mr. DeSantis, I think they have it wrong and the complexity of this issue will not simply go away by stating what they feel – and I agree – about a man becoming a woman.  First, contrary to what President Trump and Ms. Kelly said in the interview, the transgender issue is not new.  It has exploded in recent years as a divisive and controversial topic, but there have been transgender people as long as there have been people.  My first personal encounter with the subject was in college, watching a documentary titled Paris is Burning.  The film was released in 1990, compiled largely of footage taken in the late 1980s in New York City, covering the “ball culture,” where various gay and transgender individuals would compete in something resembling a queer beauty pageant in drag.  Directed by Jenny Livingston, she described the film as “important for anyone to see, whether they’re gay or not. It’s about how we’re all influenced by the media; how we strive to meet the demands of the media by trying to look like Vogue models or by owning a big car. And it’s about survival. It’s about people who have a lot of prejudices against them and who have learned to survive with wit, dignity and energy.”  At the time, Paris is Burning received rave reviews for exploring a culture outside the mainstream.  Terrence Rafferty of The New Yorker described it as “a beautiful piece of work—lively, intelligent, exploratory …. Everything about Paris Is Burning signifies so blatantly and so promiscuously that our formulations – our neatly paired theses and antitheses – multiply faster than we can keep track of them. What’s wonderful about the picture is that Livingston is smart enough not to reduce her subjects to the sum of their possible meanings…”  Michelle Parkerson, a filmmaker herself writing for The Black Film Review, said it was “a politically astute, historically important document of our precarious times.”  My personal reaction was mixed, finding it both strange, strangely captivating, and moving.  I was living in Greenwich Village myself, and had a passing familiarity with the subculture, seeing these individuals in my day to day life to an extent more than one would in suburbia, but certainly was far from immersed in anything drag and, even then, had an innate conservative bent to my thinking.  What was unmistakable, however, was the simple fact that these were all people, making choices, struggling to survive in a world where they were the outsiders.  They all had life stories, family, friends, goals, and desires, the same as me, even if their personal choices were not those I would make, or even if I couldn’t understand their choices at all from my frame of reference.  In my opinion, this is what the former President was trying to explain when he referenced Caitlyn Jenner.  This was a man he knew as Bruce, who decided to become a woman.  What right does even a President have to say emphatically this is not so and deny her reality?  I may not believe a man can become a woman, and I am entitled to that belief, but my belief alone does not and cannot prevent people from claiming they have changed sexes and living their lives that way.

The question then becomes:  What can the government and the free citizens of a Republic do about it?  Conservatives are supposed to believe in the freedoms imparted by the Constitution, and one of those freedoms is self-determination, the ability to define who we are, on our own, and make our own choices in life, even if I personally disagree or would make another choice.  Therefore, it is difficult to see how any conservative can deny the right of an adult to define their persona as they see fit.  Likewise, others have a right to react to those choices, either positively or negatively, so long as their reaction does not directly interfere or limit others’ choices.  As the old adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.  From this perspective, it is difficult to see how any conservative would support an outright ban on restrooms, locker rooms, or anything else.  Private organizations and individual families are necessarily free to make their own choices in these regards.  Government institutions, similarly, make choices based on the rule of law, the decisions of our elected representatives, and the will of the people.  The people are, of course, free to make their voices heard, petition the government when they feel their own rights have been violated, and openly debate the topic.  Both sides of this debate should be free to do so without fear of intimidation, but should also do so with compassion, dignity, and respect.  Personally believing that a man cannot transform into a woman does not preclude treating someone that disagrees, or believes they have made that transition themselves fairly, nor does it mean that one is inherently transphobic or anti-trans.  After all, it is possible to disagree with someone and respect their decision at the same time.  Some might argue that civil society demands it.  Civil society also demands that we do not prioritize the perceived rights of some over the perceived rights of others.  Biological women have rights as well, and it is hard to see how believing women should have spaces reserved exclusively for them is problematic in any way, shape, or form, so long as the establishment of these spaces follows private property rights, the Constitutional order, and the democratic process.  One can be pro-trans and against biological men in women’s prison, at least in my opinion.  The two positions are not mutually exclusive if your goal is to fairly and justly balance potentially competing interests with the imperative to treat everyone with respect and compassion.  Children, however, are another matter.  Civil society has long agreed that children do not have the same right of self determination as adults.  Generally speaking, children are not allowed to make life choices on their own.  They cannot drive, they cannot vote, they cannot purchase guns, drink, smoke, or enter into contracts.  It strikes me as absurd to suggest they can, on their own, choose their gender.  The government, acting on behalf of the will of the people, has a clear role to play in regulating these procedures, especially those that are irreversible, but at the same time parents also have a right to raise their children as they see fit, according to their beliefs.  I might disagree with a parent encouraging their child’s budding non-binary identity, but it is equally difficult to see how any conservative philosophy or view of government gives me the right to substitute my opinion for theirs.  If you disagree, consider the umbrage you take when the progressive view of America is forced on your own children, such as in California where a bill seems likely to pass that would strip children from their parents for not affirming their gender.

Cynics will say that these differences are irreconcilable, and to some extent they are right.  This is a topic that there will never be a uniform belief on.  The best we can do is balance competing concerns with the respect they deserve.  Whatever your own opinion, President Trump’s four minutes discussing the topic is illuminating because of the inherent complexity and his obvious grappling with these competing concerns in real time.  He can simultaneously respect Caitlyn Jenner’s wishes while banning transgender in the military and calling for limitations on the use of “gender affirming” care in minors.  The complexity some see as rambling is a feature of the issue that will not go away with simplistic statements, and this is ultimately how we decide complex issues in America.  The same is true of abortion, where President Trump also appears to have angered some conservatives during another interview on Sunday, but that will have to be the topic of another post, hopefully later this week.