[hn_throwaway_99]

To put it bluntly, this is irrelevant.

You put "debate" in quotes like it's somehow a dirty word, which is shocking and depressing to me. I DO care about what real transgender people have to say, and to be honest, especially on college campuses in the US, it is very easy to see they have a voice and are able to speak there opinion.

I have no idea whether this academic's opinion is one I agree with. Primarily because she wasn't allowed to speak.

[postmodernbrute]

She was allowed to speak far more than any trans people has been allowed to speak - she is speaking on The Economist. I do not see any trans people speaking on The Economist. The same applies across the entirety of published British media. That you willfully ignore this epistemological injustice, does not render it irrelevant.

The university ground is one of the very few places where real transgender people, along with other socially marginalised groups, are generally allowed to speak, and allowed to speak for themselves. They are particularly visible on campus, precisely because they are effectly not allowed to speak in other places. Such as The Economist and other print media.

And yes, certain "debates" are quite dirty. Debates are not neutral fields of free intellectual inquiry, but potent manifestation of prevailing epistemological injustices. It is shocking and depressing, that certain people must again and again defend their own existence in "debates" premised on a claim to the absurdity of their condition. It is shocking and depressing, that sincere experiences of trans people are not taken, but rather must be put under the forensic lens of "debate" to be constantly challenged and invalidated. These "debates" are dirty constructs, serving as a powerful mechanism of collective gaslighting.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I am not British, so I can't quite comment as well on the media landscape there, but I see tons of articles about transgender issues, with lots of commentary by trans people, in mainstream American media. A few simple examples:

1. https://www.newsweek.com/trans-air-force-officer-trump-ban-1...

2. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/opinion/transgender...

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trangende...

And your last paragraph about claiming people are debating about forcing certain people to, as you put it, "again and again defend their own existence", is what I find so frustrating, because this is absolutely NOT what is going on in this instance. Yes, there are a tons of examples where this DOES happen, but lumping all honest debate about difficult problems (say, how does one determine if someone is eligible to compete in women's-only sports) as "defending your own existence" is just silencing all views that don't 100% agree with you.

[matchbok]

Not "allowed" to speak? Jesus, the hyperbole doesn't help your case. Trans people are a tiny, tiny minority. That doesn't mean these organizations are actively excluding them. Get a grip.