There’s An Elephant in The Room of The Trans Wars

There’s An Elephant in The Room of The Trans Wars

For the best part Libertarians have looked on with interest and amusement at the current war between TERFS( Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and their Trans opponents. Hurling the usual magic spell words at each other (bigot, fascist, Nazi, fill in the blank with the sobriquet de jour) and each claiming the moral high ground.

There is a fairly simple libertarian solution to the issues surrounding the debate which I will come to later, but in the meantime it strikes me that there’s an aspect of this whole debacle that isn’t really being addressed and many people may have not considered or are not even consciously aware of.

It’s best to begin with asking the question “Who are the most discriminated against group?” You may well ask in which society but this group seems to get a raw deal regardless of which society or geographic location in which they reside. The prejudice against them disseminates across all races, creeds and classes and is common to both genders. (yes I said both).

I’m enormously in debt to comedian, writer and economist Dominic Frisby for his insightful highlighting of this particular form of discrimination and most of what I’m about to say has been covered far more eruditely in his YouTube video on the subject, a link to which I will provide at the end of this article.

The group to which I refer is what you would impolitely term Ugly people. Those considered to be less or un attractive have less chance of being employed, finding a partner, getting a loan/ mortgage or even getting into a night club. They have more chance of being abused, accused, vilified, ridiculed, getting arrested, being convicted, and even of suffering depression and committing suicide.

Yet no advocacy or pressure group that I’m aware of exists in the UK to lobby on their behalf. There has been no sustained campaign in the media giving them support and focusing on their plight. No one, as Frisby observes, is screaming “Ugly Lives Matter!” Perhaps because not many want to admit to being or label themselves as “ugly”. The only group extant to my knowledge is an Italian one. Club dei Brutti. The Association of Ugly People.

So what, you may ask, does this have to do with the Trans issue? Some of you may be ahead of me here. The fact of the matter is that some trans people are considered to be, politely put, less than attractive. It’s one thing to look stunning in an off the shoulder number a la The Ladyboys of Bangkok, and quite something else to look like a bandy builder in a frock who’s ate some lipstick and been punched in both eyes. (think comedian Leo Kearse in one of Frisby’s other videos)

Think about this. Who would object to a man in woman’s toilet who looks to all intents and purposes exactly like a woman and every bit as attractive? In the absence of actually waving their appendage about outside the confines of a cubicle, how would you know? On the other hand many people are instantly uncomfortable with someone who looks obviously masculine in woman’s attire. If you were a less than attractive man to start with the chances of you looking like an attractive woman are pretty slim.

Words you hear regularly to describe such people are “creepy” freakish” “sad” or “clownish”. Not flattering but people are allowed to express an opinion even if offensive. (or should be) So in short I think much, by no means all, of the pejudice experienced by trans people can be explained by the overiding aversion humans have to ugly people. Or at least those they consider to be ugly.

Let’s be clear here. I’m not denying biology. In my opinion a woman is an adult human female. I find no evidence for the existence of more than two genders. In the words of Rabbie Burns “A man’s a man fur a’ that” and he has a penis. But at the same time people have the right to live their lives as they wish as much is it harms no other. If a man chooses to live his life as a stereotypical woman and vice versa it’s no business of mine.

I’m also not denying the dangers posed to women by predatory males in female spaces such as prisons and toilets, and I find the notion of biological males in women’s sports both absurd and in many instances dangerous. Should certain women be perfectly happy to share their space, or compete in sport against biological males, who am I to prohibit that.

So on to that libertarian solution.

The first step is to recognise and defend property rights. Everyone has the right to make their own rules on their own property. That includes businesses. If a Café /Pub/ Night club wishes to have unisex toilets that’s their affair and if you aren’t comfortable with that go somewhere else that suits you.

The second is just as important. Uphold the right to freedom of association. Freedom of Association incorporates the right to exclude. For whatever reason. Feminists of course aren’t keen on that as it means that men have a right to exclude THEM. They want to retain their government dispensation of the exclusive right to discriminate based on sex afforded them through the Equality Act of 2010.

But what about public spaces? Well you know the libertarian answer to that one. Privatise.

What of prisons? I have to be honest here. Out of all the people in the world I might give a hoot about, those locked up for violating the rights of others are not my priority. Don’t bother me with assertions that women’s prisons are full of petty criminals. In this country if you are a woman and in prison.. It’s serious or you are a repeat offender. Drugs? Decriminalise.

Consider this. Violent male offenders are also a danger to other men. Especially young men. So why don’t we just segregate violent sex offenders from gen pop? Regardless of gender.

When it comes to sport it’s time for female athletes to unsubscribe from sporting bodies that don’t respect their wishes and form their own. Refuse to compete against biological males. Get government out of sport.

The ultimate irony here is that the strongest advocates for anti discrimination laws( contrary to free association) and the first to float the notion that gender was a social construct, were radical feminists.

Welcome to the cake you baked ladies.

Tastes awful. Doesn’t it.








Tam Laird  is leader of the SLP






Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful.

Daniel S. Hamermesh




This post was written by

7 Comments on "There’s An Elephant in The Room of The Trans Wars"

  • Miss Toni P says

    Stumbled upon this article after meeting you at the conference in Milton Keynes and deciding to read a bit more about what you have to say. couldn’t agree more.

    • Thanks.

      Thanks again for the lift from the Bus Station. It would have been a hell of a walk in that heat.

  • J says

    Ugly is subjective, so I don’t think it’s strange that it’s difficult for ugly people to self-organise. I don’t think people with a gender non-conforming appearance are more likely to be ugly than anyone else (according to my subjective beauty standards), but I think you may have a point that people who dislike transgender people see them as ugly. That’s underscored by the common occurrence of cisgender women attacked by transphobes for not looking sufficiently gender conforming. See for instance:

    On a pure policy basis, I agree with you. The government should neither protect nor harm transgender people or any other group. Ideally, governments should not exist at all. I’m however not able to support the Scottish Libertarian Party because it would be a betrayal of my trans and non-binary friends to support a party whose leader essentially denies their identity, or who legitimates aspects of TERF ideology. I wish the Scottish Libertarian Party either took a trans positive position culturally, or failing that, at least adopted the Randian “the smallest minority is the individual” position and refused to engage in ‘culture war’ debates. I will never be able to vote for someone who repeats the slogan of “adult human female”, so I suspect I will have to remain a non-voter.

    The people who are “denying biology” are TERFs who adopt unscientific ideological definitions of “male” and “female”. There is also no evidence to support TERFs claims that there are any heightened danger posed to cis women by the presence of trans women (or cis men for that matter) in “female spaces”. Research has even found that laws prohibiting discrimination against trans people in public restrooms, locker rooms and dressing rooms have no safety benefit. See:

    Note that I don’t support such laws. Private property owners should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever attributes they want, no matter how irrational.

    • J says

      Correction: I meant to say “no safety harm” rather than “no safety benefit” at the end of my third paragraph.

    • Peter S says

      “I wish the Scottish Libertarian Party either took a trans positive position culturally, or failing that, at least adopted the Randian “the smallest minority is the individual” position and refused to engage in ‘culture war’ debates.”

      Out of curiosity, if someone is of the position “the smallest minority is the individual”, why should that person avoid ‘culture war’ debates?

      Separately, would you agree with this position: “You can call yourself whatever you want, just don’t force other people to call you what you want.”

    • Thanks for taking the time to post that appreciated input, and the links.

  • Mike says

    J, you’re kind of missing the central dogma of the SLP. The right for individuals to choose.

    Tam and the SLP clearly support an individuals rights to present themselves however they want, to believe whatever they want. However, what you and the Trans community want is for individuals to be stripped of the right to choose whether to participate in what they perceive, to varying degrees, as an identity fantasy or a dysphoria. Forced to abandon control over the language they use and even the idea that language needs to be specific. Forced to abandon the science they’ve spent much of their lives trying to understand. Forced to abandon the rights and protections that society apportions to more vulnerable members of societies.

    Trans people already have the same rights as everyone else. Tam states it very clearly. Present yourself however you want, believe whatever you want about yourself. However,
    The trans community is so determined to have everyone else believe or participate in their self determined ‘identities’ that they’ll happily trample over everyone else’s rights in the process.

    The Trans community seems to want to have their own right to choose their beliefs protected, whilst forcing their beliefs on others. Do you see the problem and the hypocrisy with that?

    I don’t see how the SLP could jump to your side of the fence in the culture war without abandoning their central beliefs. Ludicrous you could even ask that unless you simply don’t understand libertarianism.

    There is a word for forcing particular beliefs on people. I’ll let you look it up. Then you can research which types of political parties participate in it’s various forms.

Leave Your Comment