Thank you so much this Dr Barnett! I note that the campaign against Holly has been waged for years. There were complaints against her first in 2019 when she helped organise, as part of the Victorian Women's Guild, an event at Melbourne Uni. Then there were the protests against her on campus, led by Senator Janet Rice and Dr Hannah McCann, last year I think.
There you go, I wasn’t aware that the protests went back that far. Peaceful protesting is one thing; damage to property, and protests which require the police to be called for the safety of staff and students, are another.
LOL - I just got to a point this week where I thought - I can’t stand this any more. There’s no point doing this job if I can’t debate matters. Worse comes to worst, I’ll go back into private practice,
☺️ Yes, well, there’s good reasons I was trying out practice again - as you know, my damned health put a stop to it. Putting a rain check on it. Latest thing is - recover fully from COVID, and get fit again - I am finding I am still quite tired.
Sorry, I've haven't yet read your post to the depth it deserves -- you cover a lot of ground -- though I've been following what has been happening with Lawford-Smith over the years. Right from the time she was defenestrated at Medium possibly some 4 years ago for asking "unpopular" questions:
Latter shows her account deleted and "under investigation"🙄. So I commend her courage and tenacity -- and that of many others in the battle. That "no debate" seems something of a mantra among TRAs:
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".
Though I'm not entirely sure that that "no debate" is unique to "the other side". A great many of us supposedly on the right side of history seem equally dogmatic on many issues, equally unwilling to debate perspectives that may lead to unflattering conclusions, to "inconvenient truths". I'm in the midst of gathering evidence, writing up a "bill of particulars" 🙂, but you might have some interest in my latest on the topic of "Lysenkoism and the Ideological Subversion of Biology", something of a review of a post by physicist Lawrence Krauss on the same topic:
Yes, I recall when Lawford-Smith was thrown off Medium. That impelled several other people who have unconventional approaches to leave the platform too, if I recall correctly.
Lawford-Smith has her good points, but kinda think much of her "feminism" is a large part of the problem. I see that Lorenzo Warby liked your post, but you may not have seen his own on Helen Dale's Substack where he, apparently, called "the transcult the bastard child of feminism":
Don't think many feminists -- Lawford-Smith in particular -- are much willing to consider how they've contributed to the current problems with transgenderism.
Oh Lorenzo and Helen are good friends! We met through blogging, many moons ago, and although we all have different takes on stuff, our friendships have survived and flourished. Indeed, when I say I learn from people with very different views to myself, I am thinking in part of how much I’ve learned from both of them, and I hope they’ve learned from me too.
Personally, my position on Lawford-Smith is, “I disagree with some of what you say, but I really think we must be able to talk about this, and I don’t think you or your students should be threatened.” I’d say the same to any trans scholars who were threatened by student protests, if the tables suddenly turned, and I am utterly serious. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone - I will defend them regardless - what matters is having the freedom to discuss and disagree. Voltaire position, in essence.
Thought that might have been the case -- same neck of the woods, same stomping grounds. 🙂
Though not really sure that most feminists are really listening, or are even willing to listen. Think they generally have the *higher* moral and logical ground, but still a great deal of quite problematic if not toxic dogma in their ideology.
Dale & Warby of course doing yeomen's -- yeowomen's? -- work on that score -- ICYMI, Dale's Law & Liberty post in particular:
However, I still have yet to see much movement, much "soul-searching" in feminism in general on their culpability. Much easier, and more satisfying, to point the fingers at the other tribe.
But, speaking of Voltaire, you might like Will Durant's take on one of his principles:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
Seems the crux of the whole problem -- very few willing to define their terms at the outset with much in the way of coherence, consistency, scientific credibility, or intellectual honesty. Lawford-Smith took a decent swing at it in her Medium post. However, she then managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by "cleaving", rather desperately -- like a drowning man grabbing at a straw, to the same folk-biology that, as I had indicated in my Note, "biologists" Coyne, Maroja, & Wright are peddling.
"When academics fear that an academic institution’s reputation will be tarnished by good faith intellectual questions, it’s time to worry. Surely the ability to ask good faith questions is a sign of the health of the institution, and a credit to its reputation?"
I agree with your premise, but does this not then ask us to question if the questions and arguments made by Dr. Lawford-Smith are actually made in good faith?
I have no reason to doubt her good faith, unless given reason to suppose otherwise. Independent university investigations have cleared her of wrongdoing.
Do you then believe that an anti-Semite or someone who espouses anti-black race 'science' is operating and engaging in discourse in good faith? Your framing suggests that Lawford-Smith and other gender critical academics are largely supported institutionally (by academic institutions, the media and by the government) are the ones being silenced or mistreated. Dr. Grace Lavery has recently demonstrated that the GC figures that posit themselves as being suprressed are largely the parties suppressing speech that dissents from their views: https://www.gracelavery.org/undermining-academic-freedom/ .
Her arguments are fundamentally ones that support the restriction of rights of a minority group while she also seeks to paint them as predatory and dangerous for simply existing. I do not understand how this is a position that you or anyone else can claim to be in good faith, especially if one (hopefully) believes that bigotry is not a good faith argument.
But aren’t the incidents she documents actually less egregious than what Katy is commenting on? She’s commenting on rudeness on twitter and legal threats. Katy is commenting on actual vandalism and threats of violence.
I actually think the threats to academic freedom come from both sides of this debate but I’m not sure why you’re not very bothered about a professor doing research and teaching suffering vandalism of her classroom and threats of violence... the question here is fundamentally one of process. Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely? Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?
I suppose I believe the threat and social harm done by her nominal research contains a greater threat/harm than the vandalism. We have seen increased violence against LGBT people, as well as waves of anti-LGBT legislation and discrimination, the later having clear ties to transphobic 'research' and activism that resembles Dr. Lawford-Smith's. I guess I disagree with the framing of bigotry as being an issue of academic freedom. Maybe I also disagree with the framing of vandalism as violence - or violence comparable to what gender critical ideology produces and inspires.
Some would say this goes against academic freedom, but I don't think she should be put in jail for what she says or be restrained from saying it. However, I question the fact that she is given the institutional support of a public university - I don't believe the academy should be used to launder bigotry disguised as research and I think academic freedom is being used here to enable it to continue.
"Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely?"
I don't know. Dr. Lawford-Smith is pursing a fairwork case against the university, seemingly because some students, including some of her former students (you can see their claims here: https://fighttransphobiaunimelb.tiiny.site/), have criticized her publicly.
"Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?"
Is there any evidence to the contrary? No one has been prevented from speaking or been fired here. It seems to me that some believe they are entitled to conduct their inquiries without any criticism or critique of the research or even of the actual value of the inquiry itself.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but I figured I'd lay out my thinking anyway.
Thanks for laying out your thoughts in such a calm, nuanced fashion, JJ. I really appreciate it, as it indeed demonstrates the core of where we disagree. My own approach is to see physical harm as vastly more serious than people saying nasty things, but this may relate to my legal training, and my own experience. I’ve learned I can’t control what other people think or say about me, but I can control how I react to them. If I let what other people said about me dictate my view of myself, I wouldn’t have finished school, I wouldn’t be a lawyer, I wouldn’t be a professor.
I’ve suffered mild cerebral palsy since birth, and it leads people to make all kinds of assumptions about me, even to this day. I’ve been accused variously of faking my disability, of being a diversity hire, and of being drunk (my walk is wobbly, and I have always talked slowly, with a slight drawl). So? Says more about those people than it says about me: I can’t let it touch my soul, or else I would never do anything. I think the current trend to see words as vastly harmful leads people to be paralysed. If you’re upset by Holly Lawford-Smith, ignore her, and concentrate on being the best person you can be, to rebut any negative stereotypes. (< This may be how I survived my childhood, and continue to survive to the current day).
FWIW I thought Lawford-Smith’s initial “research” project (the website involving people anecdotally talking about trans people in the toilet) was unscientific, useless and lacking in worth or rigour, and I have publicly said so. Random anecdotes from a self-selected group of people who have an axe to grind do not constitute evidence of anything at all. I consider that the uni was correct to ask her to remove any association with the institution, and the product of any such “research” should be thrown into the bin immediately. I may be the child of two scientists.
At the beginning of my classes - I make it clear to my students that they can ask questions freely, regardless of my views. I think that’s really important. I don’t mark them on whether they agree with me. I mark them on the quality of their research and argument. I think we need to make sure that across the university that this is the norm. I am prepared to put up with a lecturer whose views I vehemently disagree with, *as long as* that person is prepared to grade students with an open mind and allow discussion and disagreement with their views. John Finnis comes to mind as someone with whom I vehemently disagree (Catholic natural law scholar), but who, to my certain knowledge, would give top marks to anti-religious students who argued for LGBTQ+ rights in Jurisprudence subjects. And when I met him in person, he asked me what I was researching, looked excited when I told him, and said, “We totally disagree, but here are some ways to improve your argument.” That is how it should be.
Moreover, if a trans lecturer was subjected to the same treatment as Lawford-Smith is currently experiencing, I would stand up to demand it stop, just as I have here. It’s not, for me, about whether I agree or disagree. It’s fundamentally about allowing people to ask questions, without threat of physical violence. So - even if we agree to disagree - I would stand up for you.
Here’s the rub, would any of the hardcore activists on either side of this debate stand up for me, if I said something they found objectionable? I don’t think they would. Eh, that’s okay. I’ve spent a lifetime being the uncomfortable person who doesn’t quite fit and asks questions. All I can do is continue to try to be the best person I can be.
JJ, you are inspiring me to write another post. No, no, must resist. I have to prepare for my intensive subject next week, and finalise my marking from the last subject. Except… writing a post is more fun. No. Resist, resist, KB.
The whole framing of "transphobic research" really does beg the question - do we have good evidence that there are such things as innate and unchangeable gender identities, which people are born with, and for which the best (or only) treatment is hormonal supplementation and surgery?
My own reading of the literature (and I have multiple family members who identify as trans, so I'm very motivated to find an honest answer to this question) is no, I cannot find good evidence that this is the case. The research that apparently provides evidence for it seems to me of very poor quality, and claims made by LGBT activists frequently contradict the evidence of my own eyes.
It seems to be quite difficult for people steeped in the gender-theory way of looking at the world to credit that large numbers of people simply just don't believe that innate genders are true - nevertheless, this is the case.
And of course someone who doesn't fully understand this disbelief is bound to interpret any and all resistance to gender as "hating LGBT people for no reason", which must be distressing. But that's not so either
For what it is worth, I went through a period of wishing I was male, particularly between the ages of 14 - 17. However, in retrospect, this was partly because I was sexually abused by someone over a period of a year, when I was 14. Hence I went through stages of wanting to erase all feminine aspects of my body: those things had caused this to happen. Also I was a tomboyish, gender non-conforming girl, and I had a neurological disability which gave me a strange sense of my body to begin with. In the end, I learned to become happy with who I am, although it took about a decade. Against every expectation I had when I was 14, I’m now a happily married woman with three children. Part of that was dealing with the abuse, part of it was finding someone who liked me the way I am. So I have immense sympathy for people who feel like they don’t fit in their body. I know what it’s like. Nonetheless, transitioning as a teen wouldn’t have been the right decision for me personally. In saying this, I accept that others are in a different position. For example, my sister-in-law’s niece has consistently identified as a girl since she was two years old (basically, ever since she could explain that she did not feel like a boy). She is now 18.
Thank you so much this Dr Barnett! I note that the campaign against Holly has been waged for years. There were complaints against her first in 2019 when she helped organise, as part of the Victorian Women's Guild, an event at Melbourne Uni. Then there were the protests against her on campus, led by Senator Janet Rice and Dr Hannah McCann, last year I think.
There you go, I wasn’t aware that the protests went back that far. Peaceful protesting is one thing; damage to property, and protests which require the police to be called for the safety of staff and students, are another.
We had to be escorted by security into the Asia Centre for our talk, because of concerns about our safety!
Here is a student article about it. Content warning: there is a content warning...
https://umsu.unimelb.edu.au/news/article/7797/2019-09-24-petitions-protests-and-sex-based-events/
Enjoyed my shoutout
I did hope you might!
Wonderful piece in general. I agree with you that self-censorship is a significant problem atm
Now you've done it ... 😉🙂
But a quick skim reminds me of a classic quote of Pascal:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/blaise_pascal_133606
Thinking we've got gawd in our back pockets tends to give free rein to our worst impulses.
LOL - I just got to a point this week where I thought - I can’t stand this any more. There’s no point doing this job if I can’t debate matters. Worse comes to worst, I’ll go back into private practice,
Would welcome you back in private practice, Katy! Our clients pay us to ask the difficult questions rather than shut us down :)
☺️ Yes, well, there’s good reasons I was trying out practice again - as you know, my damned health put a stop to it. Putting a rain check on it. Latest thing is - recover fully from COVID, and get fit again - I am finding I am still quite tired.
So wishing you good health isn't just the usual platitude, Katy!
NOPE! Never! All good wishes accepted gratefully. 😍
Sorry, I've haven't yet read your post to the depth it deserves -- you cover a lot of ground -- though I've been following what has been happening with Lawford-Smith over the years. Right from the time she was defenestrated at Medium possibly some 4 years ago for asking "unpopular" questions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190502004710/https://medium.com/@aytchellis/is-it-possible-to-change-sex-8d863ce7fca2
https://medium.com/@aytchellis/is-it-possible-to-change-sex-8d863ce7fca2
Latter shows her account deleted and "under investigation"🙄. So I commend her courage and tenacity -- and that of many others in the battle. That "no debate" seems something of a mantra among TRAs:
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/15/unreasonable-ideas-a-reply-to-alison-phipps/
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".
Though I'm not entirely sure that that "no debate" is unique to "the other side". A great many of us supposedly on the right side of history seem equally dogmatic on many issues, equally unwilling to debate perspectives that may lead to unflattering conclusions, to "inconvenient truths". I'm in the midst of gathering evidence, writing up a "bill of particulars" 🙂, but you might have some interest in my latest on the topic of "Lysenkoism and the Ideological Subversion of Biology", something of a review of a post by physicist Lawrence Krauss on the same topic:
https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-17712944
Yes, I recall when Lawford-Smith was thrown off Medium. That impelled several other people who have unconventional approaches to leave the platform too, if I recall correctly.
"unconventional" ... 🤔😉🙂
Lawford-Smith has her good points, but kinda think much of her "feminism" is a large part of the problem. I see that Lorenzo Warby liked your post, but you may not have seen his own on Helen Dale's Substack where he, apparently, called "the transcult the bastard child of feminism":
https://helendale.substack.com/p/a-common-humanity-or-bust
Don't think many feminists -- Lawford-Smith in particular -- are much willing to consider how they've contributed to the current problems with transgenderism.
Oh Lorenzo and Helen are good friends! We met through blogging, many moons ago, and although we all have different takes on stuff, our friendships have survived and flourished. Indeed, when I say I learn from people with very different views to myself, I am thinking in part of how much I’ve learned from both of them, and I hope they’ve learned from me too.
Personally, my position on Lawford-Smith is, “I disagree with some of what you say, but I really think we must be able to talk about this, and I don’t think you or your students should be threatened.” I’d say the same to any trans scholars who were threatened by student protests, if the tables suddenly turned, and I am utterly serious. It doesn’t matter if I agree with someone - I will defend them regardless - what matters is having the freedom to discuss and disagree. Voltaire position, in essence.
Thought that might have been the case -- same neck of the woods, same stomping grounds. 🙂
Though not really sure that most feminists are really listening, or are even willing to listen. Think they generally have the *higher* moral and logical ground, but still a great deal of quite problematic if not toxic dogma in their ideology.
Dale & Warby of course doing yeomen's -- yeowomen's? -- work on that score -- ICYMI, Dale's Law & Liberty post in particular:
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
However, I still have yet to see much movement, much "soul-searching" in feminism in general on their culpability. Much easier, and more satisfying, to point the fingers at the other tribe.
But, speaking of Voltaire, you might like Will Durant's take on one of his principles:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Seems the crux of the whole problem -- very few willing to define their terms at the outset with much in the way of coherence, consistency, scientific credibility, or intellectual honesty. Lawford-Smith took a decent swing at it in her Medium post. However, she then managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by "cleaving", rather desperately -- like a drowning man grabbing at a straw, to the same folk-biology that, as I had indicated in my Note, "biologists" Coyne, Maroja, & Wright are peddling.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
"When academics fear that an academic institution’s reputation will be tarnished by good faith intellectual questions, it’s time to worry. Surely the ability to ask good faith questions is a sign of the health of the institution, and a credit to its reputation?"
I agree with your premise, but does this not then ask us to question if the questions and arguments made by Dr. Lawford-Smith are actually made in good faith?
I have no reason to doubt her good faith, unless given reason to suppose otherwise. Independent university investigations have cleared her of wrongdoing.
Do you then believe that an anti-Semite or someone who espouses anti-black race 'science' is operating and engaging in discourse in good faith? Your framing suggests that Lawford-Smith and other gender critical academics are largely supported institutionally (by academic institutions, the media and by the government) are the ones being silenced or mistreated. Dr. Grace Lavery has recently demonstrated that the GC figures that posit themselves as being suprressed are largely the parties suppressing speech that dissents from their views: https://www.gracelavery.org/undermining-academic-freedom/ .
Her arguments are fundamentally ones that support the restriction of rights of a minority group while she also seeks to paint them as predatory and dangerous for simply existing. I do not understand how this is a position that you or anyone else can claim to be in good faith, especially if one (hopefully) believes that bigotry is not a good faith argument.
I am relying on the independent report of the uni legal department, which found Lawford-Smith had no case to answer: https://www.smh.com.au/national/university-closes-book-on-lecturer-transphobia-complaints-20230518-p5d9c4.html
I trust an independent lawyer’s report over the representations of activists on either side. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
But aren’t the incidents she documents actually less egregious than what Katy is commenting on? She’s commenting on rudeness on twitter and legal threats. Katy is commenting on actual vandalism and threats of violence.
I actually think the threats to academic freedom come from both sides of this debate but I’m not sure why you’re not very bothered about a professor doing research and teaching suffering vandalism of her classroom and threats of violence... the question here is fundamentally one of process. Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely? Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?
I suppose I believe the threat and social harm done by her nominal research contains a greater threat/harm than the vandalism. We have seen increased violence against LGBT people, as well as waves of anti-LGBT legislation and discrimination, the later having clear ties to transphobic 'research' and activism that resembles Dr. Lawford-Smith's. I guess I disagree with the framing of bigotry as being an issue of academic freedom. Maybe I also disagree with the framing of vandalism as violence - or violence comparable to what gender critical ideology produces and inspires.
Some would say this goes against academic freedom, but I don't think she should be put in jail for what she says or be restrained from saying it. However, I question the fact that she is given the institutional support of a public university - I don't believe the academy should be used to launder bigotry disguised as research and I think academic freedom is being used here to enable it to continue.
"Can students ask questions in class reasonably freely?"
I don't know. Dr. Lawford-Smith is pursing a fairwork case against the university, seemingly because some students, including some of her former students (you can see their claims here: https://fighttransphobiaunimelb.tiiny.site/), have criticized her publicly.
"Can professors conduct their inquiries reasonably freely?"
Is there any evidence to the contrary? No one has been prevented from speaking or been fired here. It seems to me that some believe they are entitled to conduct their inquiries without any criticism or critique of the research or even of the actual value of the inquiry itself.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but I figured I'd lay out my thinking anyway.
Thanks for laying out your thoughts in such a calm, nuanced fashion, JJ. I really appreciate it, as it indeed demonstrates the core of where we disagree. My own approach is to see physical harm as vastly more serious than people saying nasty things, but this may relate to my legal training, and my own experience. I’ve learned I can’t control what other people think or say about me, but I can control how I react to them. If I let what other people said about me dictate my view of myself, I wouldn’t have finished school, I wouldn’t be a lawyer, I wouldn’t be a professor.
I’ve suffered mild cerebral palsy since birth, and it leads people to make all kinds of assumptions about me, even to this day. I’ve been accused variously of faking my disability, of being a diversity hire, and of being drunk (my walk is wobbly, and I have always talked slowly, with a slight drawl). So? Says more about those people than it says about me: I can’t let it touch my soul, or else I would never do anything. I think the current trend to see words as vastly harmful leads people to be paralysed. If you’re upset by Holly Lawford-Smith, ignore her, and concentrate on being the best person you can be, to rebut any negative stereotypes. (< This may be how I survived my childhood, and continue to survive to the current day).
FWIW I thought Lawford-Smith’s initial “research” project (the website involving people anecdotally talking about trans people in the toilet) was unscientific, useless and lacking in worth or rigour, and I have publicly said so. Random anecdotes from a self-selected group of people who have an axe to grind do not constitute evidence of anything at all. I consider that the uni was correct to ask her to remove any association with the institution, and the product of any such “research” should be thrown into the bin immediately. I may be the child of two scientists.
At the beginning of my classes - I make it clear to my students that they can ask questions freely, regardless of my views. I think that’s really important. I don’t mark them on whether they agree with me. I mark them on the quality of their research and argument. I think we need to make sure that across the university that this is the norm. I am prepared to put up with a lecturer whose views I vehemently disagree with, *as long as* that person is prepared to grade students with an open mind and allow discussion and disagreement with their views. John Finnis comes to mind as someone with whom I vehemently disagree (Catholic natural law scholar), but who, to my certain knowledge, would give top marks to anti-religious students who argued for LGBTQ+ rights in Jurisprudence subjects. And when I met him in person, he asked me what I was researching, looked excited when I told him, and said, “We totally disagree, but here are some ways to improve your argument.” That is how it should be.
Moreover, if a trans lecturer was subjected to the same treatment as Lawford-Smith is currently experiencing, I would stand up to demand it stop, just as I have here. It’s not, for me, about whether I agree or disagree. It’s fundamentally about allowing people to ask questions, without threat of physical violence. So - even if we agree to disagree - I would stand up for you.
Here’s the rub, would any of the hardcore activists on either side of this debate stand up for me, if I said something they found objectionable? I don’t think they would. Eh, that’s okay. I’ve spent a lifetime being the uncomfortable person who doesn’t quite fit and asks questions. All I can do is continue to try to be the best person I can be.
JJ, you are inspiring me to write another post. No, no, must resist. I have to prepare for my intensive subject next week, and finalise my marking from the last subject. Except… writing a post is more fun. No. Resist, resist, KB.
The whole framing of "transphobic research" really does beg the question - do we have good evidence that there are such things as innate and unchangeable gender identities, which people are born with, and for which the best (or only) treatment is hormonal supplementation and surgery?
My own reading of the literature (and I have multiple family members who identify as trans, so I'm very motivated to find an honest answer to this question) is no, I cannot find good evidence that this is the case. The research that apparently provides evidence for it seems to me of very poor quality, and claims made by LGBT activists frequently contradict the evidence of my own eyes.
It seems to be quite difficult for people steeped in the gender-theory way of looking at the world to credit that large numbers of people simply just don't believe that innate genders are true - nevertheless, this is the case.
And of course someone who doesn't fully understand this disbelief is bound to interpret any and all resistance to gender as "hating LGBT people for no reason", which must be distressing. But that's not so either
For what it is worth, I went through a period of wishing I was male, particularly between the ages of 14 - 17. However, in retrospect, this was partly because I was sexually abused by someone over a period of a year, when I was 14. Hence I went through stages of wanting to erase all feminine aspects of my body: those things had caused this to happen. Also I was a tomboyish, gender non-conforming girl, and I had a neurological disability which gave me a strange sense of my body to begin with. In the end, I learned to become happy with who I am, although it took about a decade. Against every expectation I had when I was 14, I’m now a happily married woman with three children. Part of that was dealing with the abuse, part of it was finding someone who liked me the way I am. So I have immense sympathy for people who feel like they don’t fit in their body. I know what it’s like. Nonetheless, transitioning as a teen wouldn’t have been the right decision for me personally. In saying this, I accept that others are in a different position. For example, my sister-in-law’s niece has consistently identified as a girl since she was two years old (basically, ever since she could explain that she did not feel like a boy). She is now 18.