Balanced discussions are returning to a subject too long at the mercy of uncompromising ideologues

Is it just me or have we reached a watershed moment in the trans debate? Ever since transgenderism rose up the political agenda, it has been placed on that well-worn pedestal of subjects that are considered beyond critique. That we can even call it a debate at all is a sign of how far our public discourse has come.

Until recently, any attempt to open up discussion on how to balance transgender rights with the rights of women or children was interpreted as an act of prejudice by the transgender lobby. Children’s author Jacqueline Wilson learnt this the hard way when she had the temerity to suggest that surgery might not always be an appropriate response to a child struggling with their gender. After being labelled a TERF (“Trans-exclusionary radical feminist”) on Twitter, Wilson's critics commanded her to go away and "educate herself". In other words, she must change her mind.

But just this week we saw a victory for common sense that might not have taken place twelve months ago: a Texan judge ruled that Jeffrey Younger could have a say over whether his ex-wife could administer so-called ‘puberty blockers’ to their seven year old son. The dad’s ‘wait and see’ approach had previously been rejected in court.

Jefrey Younger is now far from alone in questioning this controversial treatment. In July this year, the Royal College of General Practitioners finally felt able to express its reservations, concluding that there was a lack of “robust evidence” about the long-term effects of hormone blockers on children. Until recently, holding such a public position, no matter how scientific, was effectively untenable because of the force of feeling on the subject. Just ask psychotherapist James Caspian, whose research proposal into reverse gender reassignment was rejected back in February by Bath Spa University on the grounds that the findings might prompt a social media backlash.

TERF was also the term flung at Martina Navratilova in 2018 when she labelled the inclusion of trans athletes in women’s sport, as ‘insane’ and ‘cheating’. For months Navratilova was a lone voice - ostracised by the media and the sports community on account of her views. It was only when she changed her mind during a BBC documentary in June that she was admitted back into the fold.

But when trans athlete Dr Rachel McKinnon claimed first place this week in the women’s match sprint of the masters world cycling championship, there was a palpable change in the tone of the debate. Until recently, few dissenting voices would have stuck their heads above the parapet to question McKinnon’s right to compete, hoping to avoid the same caustic treatment as Navratilova.