The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
This piece raises an important and useful point. But there is also an important difference between sexual attraction, and identification with (or having problems of identification with) a particular gender. It is that, if we use the sex/gender distinction in such a way that the latter is social, then it isn't something that plausibly looks a matter of someone's intrinsic identity, it is likely to vary across time, cultures and so on, and also depends importantly on recognition by others.
The issues are complex, and it seems to me that everyone should show the greatest possible compassion for people who experience difficulties in this area. I'd also have thought that there is everything to be said for making gender as wide as we possibly can (and thus as accommodating as possible of a range of personae). But just because social recognition is involved - and how strangers are to react to someone in a non-face-to-face society - it seems to me that it is mistaken that we should just rest on *self*-definition.