On What is a Woman? and campus speech

A measured response to “The conservative ‘war’ against trans people”

On March 28, The Ring-tum Phi published an opinion piece by Blake Ramsey titled “The conservative “war” against trans people,” written in response to The Spectator bringing political commentator Matt Walsh to speak on campus. In the article, he details two goals, to (1) “attempt to tackle the anti-trans rhetoric being pushed by Conservatives,” and (2) “push forward a plan to repel these attacks.”

To achieve his first goal, the bulk of Ramsey’s argument hinges on one assumption: transgender people have existed for millennia, and they have been a normal facet of communities around the globe. He cites one-off examples such as the hijras in India and the Roman Emperor Elagabalus. Yes, these are indeed historic examples of transgenders. However, as every other aspect of society has evolved over time, so has the concept of transgenderism.

What is happening in the United States today is not comparable to the hijras, nor is it comparable to any other historical precedent. What we are experiencing in real-time is the exploitation of young, undeveloped children as the first profitable minority group. 

While watching Matt Walsh’s documentary What is a Woman? in preparation for his arrival on campus, there was one story that stuck with me the most. Scott Newgent is a 50-year-old transgender man who transitioned at the age of 42 and is the parent of three children.

Newgent details the seven surgeries he has had to complete his transition. He lists the several health complications that followed, including a heart attack, 17 rounds of antibiotics, a medevac ride, and countless emergency room trips. From ample knowledge and experience, he states that medically transitioning is a dangerous and experimental process. Despite doctors knowing this, they still administer these surgeries (which conveniently have a $70,000 price tag) and puberty blockers that are permanently irreversible.

Neither these experimental procedures — with a 2-in-3 chance of eventually killing the patient from complications — nor their profit incentive, existed in Ancient Rome or any period previous to the present day.

At age seven, there was no reason for me to believe Santa wasn’t real. At age 13, I was still profoundly naive and stupid. The human brain does not complete development until 25. Why should children at these young ages that cannot properly consent be able to independently make decisions with permanent consequences under the direction of malicious, money-hungry doctors?

To be clear, I do not condone violence or harassment of any minority group for their identity. Doing so would be against everything I stand for. But, as Scott Newgent states in his interview, he is not transphobic for wanting to educate the public on the very real dangers of modern transitioning. Yet, even as a transgender and a parent himself, speaking up on the common experiences that he and many others — including minors — had to endure are either ignored or labeled as “anti-trans.”

•••

Ramsey’s plan to repel “anti-trans” rhetoric is remarkably simple: to ban the opinions he disagrees with. This seems to be a fairly popular view among students, faculty, and alumni, with the petition banning Walsh’s appearance at W&L featuring over 600 signatures. This approach is, frankly, dangerous.

In John Stuart Mill’s 1859 essay On Liberty, he supports the idea that when individuals are free to express their thoughts and ideas, even those that are considered unpopular or controversial, it leads to a more productive society. Mill believes that no single person or group has a monopoly on truth and that the best way to arrive at the truth is to engage in open debate. He saw the free exchange of ideas as essential to a democratic society, where everyone is free to make decisions based on a range of perspectives and viewpoints.

Mill was not the only scholar to hold this rationale. In his inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson stated, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat.” Today, many call this concept the marketplace of ideas.

If Ramsey and other opponents of a Matt Walsh talk truly felt as if his rhetoric was “illogical,” full of “hypocrisy, [and] lies,” why prevent him from speaking? If his speech was evidently full of fallacies and falsehoods, then the marketplace of ideas, a tried-and-true concept, would phase out his views in due time and render them irrelevant. Yet, any resemblance of transparent public discourse is being replaced with attempts to suppress it.

The Chicago Principles were introduced and adopted by the University of Chicago in 2014 as a response to the many unjust censorship attempts of speakers that are viewed as controversial on college campuses. As of 2023, 98 U.S. colleges and universities, including Washington & Lee, have adopted or endorsed the Chicago Principles.

Because these institutions have expressed a commitment to freedom of expression, does that provide sufficient evidence for them to be labeled as conservative bigots? Would accepting that free, robust, and unfettered debate that a speaker, such as Matt Walsh, would bring to campus definitively classify Princeton and American as fascist institutions? Obviously not. American University has even been ranked as the most left-wing college in the United States for years.

And that’s where the argument for banning “controversial” speakers on campuses tends to lose steam. The same people that sign a petition to ban Walsh from speaking at W&L believe that “we cannot allow [conservatives] to dominate public spaces.” Would that not conveniently pave the way for their own agenda to dominate those same spaces?

That’s because it was never about preventing violence or the “eradication of trans people.” This is a lackluster attempt to control the political narrative on campus by pressuring students and the administration to reject any dialogue that suggests any narrative other than the left-wing status quo.

How can one possibly claim to adhere to an ideology that emphasizes tolerance and acceptance when calling for the hanging of a campus speaker? How does one write an article about transgender rights when they blatantly reject the basic human right to free speech, to begin with? It is ironic that the justification of death threats in a valiant crusade against fascism is shortly followed by the tireless attempt to ban dissenting political discussion, a fundamental principle of fascism.

Contrary to what pessimists on both sides of the political spectrum will tell you, the fall of Western democracy will not be attributed to the so-called “eradicat[ion] of transgenderism,” or because people want to be transgender to begin with. The history books will blame the continued ostracism of free-thinking individuals and the campaign to abolish the right to freedom of expression in academia.

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions.