Transgender rights
Who decides your gender?
Gender self-identification is often cited as a matter of civil rights. It is more problematic than many advocates realise
THIS NEWSPAPER is a proud champion of gay rights. We first ran an editorial in favour of same-sex marriage in 1996. We hew to the liberal principle that people are the best judges of their own interests and should be able to act as they wish, as long as no one else is harmed. That some people regard homosexuality as sinful is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but not to stop others from exercising their own freedoms.
Some see gender self-identification for trans people as the next frontier. This starts with the idea that what makes someone a man or woman is not biological sex but an inner knowledge of who they are. Trans people have gender dysphoria, an overwhelming sense of belonging to the other sex. They suffer grievously when they cannot act on this. Even when they can, they fall victim to discrimination.
The self-ID campaign argues that members of an oppressed minority should be free to choose their gender identity. Indeed, how can there be any justification for the state to stand in their way?
Yet this week it emerged that President Donald Trump plans to do just that. Under his predecessor, Barack Obama, “sex” was interpreted in federal rules to mean gender self-ID. Under Mr Trump, it is likely to revert to mean “immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth”. This definition means that trans people would be denied recognition in federal law. They would have no path to changing their legal status.
That is wrong. However, the state should also resist the impulse to make trans people’s legal status a matter of personal definition, as Britain is considering. The state needs to be involved for the liberal reason that the welfare gains of self-ID for trans people should be balanced against the potential harm to others.
That is wrong. However, the state should also resist the impulse to make trans people’s legal status a matter of personal definition, as Britain is considering.
有点迷糊，这段的意思是不能让trans people的法律地位简单视为和普通人一样的自我定义，实现真正的自由，需要保障trans people利益的同时，不伤害到其他群体。
Such harm is hard to quantify, but should not be dismissed lightly. Men commit almost all sexual crimes, so society sets aside spaces in order to help keep women and children safe. Were just 1% of the men in prison in Britain for sexual crimes to identify as women, it would double the number of women in prison for such offences. If “man” and “woman” are determined by self-ID, spaces and institutions for women and children will become accessible to anyone. There is no reason to think that identifying as a woman makes a male any less dangerous (or any more)
整段是上一段的证据，.
By contrast, there is every reason to think that predatory males will claim to be trans in order to commit crimes more easily. Statistics about crimes by trans women as such are lacking (they are increasingly being recorded and reported simply as crimes by women). If females stay out of women’s spaces because privacy or their faith dictates it, their loss of freedom and comfort will not show up in any statistics either.
谨记，不要以为啥子句子都有引申，就字面上的意思而已
这段讲，男人可能为了方便做爱去变形，导致女性权益受损
The welfare of children should weigh in the balance, too. Those who choose a trans identity are being started on irreversible treatment ever younger, despite evidence that without it most would change their mind. Some schools have started to teach children to understand their gender identity by introspection, not anatomy. They are told that if they are leaders and rational they are boys, and if they are nurturing and gossipy they are girls. Thus outdated gender stereotypes have come roaring back under self-ID. Children who may have turned out gay are being channelled instead into a trans identity.
nurturing用的满新颖的
The impetus for action is often noble: trans people have historically been subject to terrible discrimination. But the theory of gender identity is relatively new. And how someone forms their gender identity is still poorly understood. Deciding how to balance competing rights and how to weigh risks will demand careful debate. Yet in many places discussion of trans issues has fallen prey to the illiberalism of identity politics. Anyone who questions the new orthodoxy is branded “transphobic”. Research into the harms to children from early transitioning is suppressed. Academics exploring the consequences of redefining sex categories face campaigns to get them sacked.
新正统观的愚昧之处，如“我家偶像很努力的”一样让人哭笑不得
This is a dangerous path. A rush to gender self-ID may end up causing harm and opening the door to the extreme backlash epitomised by the Trump administration’s plan. There is a better approach. First, create a procedure that allows people to change their legal sex. Britain’s current law, which lets those diagnosed with gender dysphoria gain approval to do so after two years of living as the opposite sex, may be too slow and bureaucratic. But the broad outline is right. Second, step up legal protections against harassment and discrimination for everyone, regardless of how they present themselves. Third, introduce more “third spaces” (gender-neutral facilities) to complement single-sex ones. These measures will not satisfy the staunchest advocates of gender self-ID. But they are the right way forward.
整篇文章很好，不过时，有理有据，说服力强大，可以背一背。