I think if N were to post here, it would be very interesting to hear her perspective, but I would not wish her to contribute if she found it too upsetting or uncomfortable. Sharing viewpoints is incredibly important to both discussion and learning. it's really a choice for her.
N here Ian.
The reason I generally choose a position of no involvement is not for the reasons you suppose. I just find it fruitless to engage with those with the most absolute opinions especially when they are not founded on evidence but some other long-held belief, sometimes to do with religious faith, sometimes to do with Victorian imperialistic opinions concerning the societal roles or 'duties' of individuals.
Not only that but the actual lived experiences of trans people tends to be of little interest to absolutists, let alone the opinions of 'lefty lawyers'.
If one begins with the premise that 'sex is binary and immutable' then one pursues a false trail. It is true that human bodies are equipped to make reproductive sex without intervention a binary. It is true that there is a genetic pathway. However what is not true is that there is a law, rule, or duty to follow the path to parenthood. Neither can all humans for a variety of reasons become parents, while others are not suited to parenthood. The supposed success of human reproduction may follow such variable paths that one might say it is a lottery.
If we are to take the view that the true 'meaning of life' is to be successful as parents, then many people must be viewed as failures, either in not being able to achieve parenthood or just (as seen in my own childhood experiences) being awfully under-equipped to be a parent.
If one is free from the expectations of religious belief, of Victorian values, of ideas of social roles and duty, then one must assume one if free to live one's best life without impediment. I will always say that it matters much more to be a good parent, than simply a parent.
Once the myth of such duty to procreate is dispelled, the adherence to 'sex matters' to a much lower import than observance of universal human rights. At times sex does matter, principally for good healthcare. There are difficulties to do with comfort and dignity of the person, however these difficulties are not insurmountable.
The superstitious fear of the unknown is at play, alive and well today as has been the case in centuries past. When presented with fear, people will often take irrational action - a good example being the Hartlepool Monkeyhangers.
The UK government 'lefty lawyer' accusation is worthy of a short comment. In 1948 the UNDHR was signed with the UK as a founder member. It consolidated the views of representatives from a number of countries. It is in effect as socialist democratic contract for the progress of humankind. It is not the law, but is the basis of modern UK human rights law, and much other international law. Lawyers such as I who are entrenched in it are demonised as being 'lefty lawyers', or even 'communists' for being its advocates - but that is the job of the lawyer, to be an advocate on behalf of the law. It is the eventual path to justice.
