Yeah, I agree with this. And I do think they’re pretty earnest about their critiques of Glinner, because I share pretty much all of their views about this (and the broader issues) — I don’t misgender people, I’m not a fan of his dating profile prank, I think there are younger people who have a deep psychological burden that really might be alleviated by transition, and I’m not a fan of bathroom bills at all.

And yet, from my own experience, I know that these points of agreement are what I choose to emphasize when I’m around my friends who are closer to the trans-rights side of things. Even though these views are completely honest, I’m making a choice to amplify those points of agreement and amplify any points of disagreement I have with someone like Glinner. In some ways, people like Glinner have been a blessing to me in my personal life — they’re easy to genuinely disavow, and they work as a signal to show that I’m a good person. Which I think I am! But if we were to get down to the philosophical core about these issues — about whether I think gender identity is even coherent — then I would have to be honest and say that I just don’t think it is. So at the end of the day, even when I disavow the uglier tactics of some gender critical advocates, we probably agree more about the underlying principles.

I understand where they’re coming from because I do the same kind of dance. And Katie said that she’ll never get back into the good graces of extreme trans rights activists, and she’s right. But I think for both of us, it’s not about that; it’s about staying in the good graces of our normie liberal friends and peers who are willing to hear our thoughts on these matters, but who are also listening like hawks to see if we’re on the right side of it all. It gets frustrating because at a certain point, I want them to confront everything directly and explicitly, but I’m not sure if they will.