The Long March out of the Gender Clinics

B ritish newscaster Camilla Tominey recently conducted an interview with Labour Member of Parliament and Health Secretary James Murray, a portion of which was dedicated to discussing transgenderism and the U.K. government’s upcoming clinical trial for puberty-blocking drugs. (For a bit of background reading, see my previous article about the trial, which would involve children as young as eleven.) The full 17-minute interview is available here, but below I’ve included a transcript (edited slightly for clarity) of a particularly riveting excerpt:

Tominey: Why are you having [the puberty-blocker trial]? The Cass Review found that there were safeguarding concerns around children being put on puberty blockers. Is it because you are pro-trans?

Murray: Look, this is a really difficult issue and there are lots of different sensitive views on it and I found taking this decision difficult. I struggled with it. You know, I felt uncomfortable and uneasy about this matter. But as secretary of state for health, my responsibility is to look at the clinical evidence, look at the clinical advice, and take the right decision. Now in this case, Dr. Hilary Cass — who is widely respected from many sides of the debate — said that there is not enough clinical evidence to take a decision about how and whether puberty blockers should be used. . . .

Tominey: So we’re just going to use children as guinea pigs?

And then, a bit later in the discussion:

Tominey: But you are quite pro-trans, aren’t you? You’ve appeared in campaigns and things. I mean, do you think a woman can have a penis? Because you did previously. It’s an important question for a health secretary to answer.

Murray: No, I don’t.

Tominey: So, you’ve changed your mind.

Murray: Yes.

Tominey: Why have you changed your mind?

Murray: Well, I think a lot of us have been thinking about this issue over recent years. And you know, I wouldn’t now say that, for instance, trans women are women. I think that biological sex is important.

Tominey: But you must have known that before. You’re very well educated. . . . How on earth could you have previously thought that a woman could have a penis?

Murray: Well, I think this is an issue that a lot of us have thought about in recent years. And I think there’s a difference between sex and gender. I think that, when it comes to sex, biology is what matters.

Tominey: And do you owe women who were gender-critical and then were canceled an apology?

Murray: Look, I don’t think people should be canceled. I think people should be allowed to have their views.

Tominey: Part of the reason these women were canceled is because people like you denied biological sex, and then they were hounded on by the trans lobby, and now you’ve changed your mind. Thankfully, because they took it to the Supreme Court.

Murray: Well, look, I hope people would see that I’ve always been respectful of different views on this topic, as with others. I think the way I approach things when people have different views is to be respectful, and to listen to people’s views on this. And on this issue in particular, I listen to people. I listen to constituents of mine. . . . I’ve listened to other people working in public services, in policy, and so on. And yes, my position now is different than it was a few years ago.

This exchange from the interview has since gone viral. Plenty of people on social media — especially gender-critical British women — have expressed outrage at and frustration with Murray. These women emphasize that they were demonized for defining sex with respect to biology and expressing concerns about “trans inclusive” policies, but now, a male politician who had rejected common sense can retract his previous claims with ease and face seemingly no punishment for the damage his views inflicted. Others have aptly noted that, if Murray really has embraced the biological understanding of sex and recognized the harms of transgenderism, he would not be proceeding with a clinical trial that studies dangerous puberty-blocking drugs on preteens. Commentators have further pointed out that Murray’s party is promoting a bill that would criminalize an expansive notion of “conversion practices” and risk imprisoning people for gender-critical views. And perhaps what is most memorable from the interview is what Murray left out: He didn’t explicitly apologize, nor did he say anything that can be construed as criticism of the LGBTQ+ activists who have adopted totalitarian tactics to advance their pernicious ideology.

All of that is to say that Murray has faced some fierce criticism since appearing on GB News. In response to the sustained negative commentary about Murray, philosopher Peter Boghossian wrote the following on social media: “Don’t dogpile this guy. Thank him for being honest. He stated that he changed his mind and now understands that a woman cannot have a penis. We are in the beginning of a mass vehement denial where people deny they ever believed any of it. Reward honesty, [especially] about idiotic things.”

I broadly agree that we should emphasize the value of introspection, strive to cultivate an environment where robust discourse thrives, commend honest people who admit to their wrongs, and embrace the notion that earnestly pursuing the truth will sometimes result in changing our views — even our foundational convictions. We should also dispense with the idea that holding an erroneous view is necessarily a significant moral failing, since we’re all fallible.

But here’s the problem: Murray hasn’t had an intellectual conversion. He did not consider philosophical questions related to sex and arrive at different answers than before. He was honest during the interview, but only insofar as he recalled listening to the public. What he neglected to disclose was that he detected a social shift and adjusted his speech accordingly for political gain. Ultimately, his recent statements do not represent newfound beliefs or values but rather a new strategy that was calibrated to the current cultural mood.

I would agree with Boghossian’s assessment if the person in question were someone who sincerely held an erroneous view but then adopted a new position as a result of philosophical inquiry. But there’s a huge difference between changing your mind and retracting the mantras you ignobly shouted when the mob was nearby now that the mob has lost its weapons. I refuse to think that anyone genuinely believed in the “gender identity” nonsense or earnestly accepted the notion that men too can get pregnant. Although I am glad to witness a cultural realignment, I will not commend the people who now express the correct views on sex — because they always knew those views were correct. It would be admirable, I think, if Murray (along with everyone else who supported the gender craze) said something like this: “I never really believed that an individual could change sex, nor did I actually think that a woman could have a penis. Yet I previously said those things, despite knowing they were false, because I am a coward who wanted to remain in the good graces of the progressive left. I was willing to affirm facially absurd claims — largely at the expense of vulnerable women and girls who became victims of sexual misconduct, as well as distraught children who became abused lab rats — because I could not withstand being called a ‘fascist transphobe’ by strangers on the internet. I apologize for what I have done and what I have failed to do.” Perhaps I am a heretic in the church, but my willingness to forgive is conditioned on perceiving remorse.