When Someone Disagrees Respectfully
A reader wrote to me after watching my response to Kathleen Stock. He raised concerns I know many share. Here’s my reply.
I received a thoughtful, critical message from a viewer in New Zealand. Rather than respond privately, I wanted to address it here, because I suspect many people share these concerns.
I’ve broken it into sections so we can take each point in turn.
Dear Andrew
Thank you for writing. I mean that genuinely. It’s rare to receive criticism that’s this considered, and I’d rather engage with someone who disagrees thoughtfully than preach to those who already agree.
Let me take your points in turn.
On legal recognition and biological reality
Andrew wrote:
When Dr. Stock argues that one cannot “literally change sex,” you counter by citing the Equality Act and Gender Recognition Certificates. A legal certificate does not alter biological reality, and pretending that a legal fiction is the same as material fact is confusing and unhelpful.
My response:
You suggest I’m using “legal semantics” to sidestep biological facts. I understand why it might seem that way, but I think the distinction matters differently than you’re framing it.
When I refer to the UK Equality Act or Gender Recognition Certificates, I’m not claiming that legal documents alter chromosomes. Of course they don’t. What I’m saying is that our society has already decided, through law and through medical practice, that sex as a social and legal category can be changed. That’s not something I have invented, it’s the framework we already operate within.
The question isn’t whether chromosomes change, the question is what we do when someone’s gender differs to their biological sex? Do we treat trans women as women in daily life, in law, in medicine? The UK decided yes, decades ago. The debate now, for some, is whether to roll that back.
Kathleen Stock frames this as protecting “biological reality.” But biology is not a single, simple thing. Sex is determined by chromosomes, hormones, gonads, secondary sex characteristics, and more. These don’t always align, even in people who aren’t trans. Intersex conditions exist. Hormone levels vary. Bodies vary and can change.
Trans people who have medically transitioned have altered their hormonal profile, their physiology, and often their anatomy. At what point does that become “real” enough? That’s a genuine question about where we draw lines and why.
On the word “woman”
Andrew wrote:
Your argument that “trans” is simply an adjective like “tall” or “black” attempts to linguistically erase the distinct biological category of “woman.”
My response:
You worry that using “trans” as an adjective erases the category of “woman.” I’d argue the opposite. “Trans woman” specifies. It doesn’t erase. Just as “tall woman” or “young woman” describes without negating.
The category of “woman” has never been as fixed as this debate implies. It has always included variation. What’s changed is that we’re now explicitly including trans women, and some people find that threatening. But inclusion doesn’t require exclusion, there’s room for all.
On safeguarding and single-sex spaces
Andrew wrote:
You suggested that maintaining women-only spaces is “disrespectful to males.” This ignores the fundamental reason why single-sex spaces exist: risk management, privacy, and the safety of vulnerable females.
My response:
This is where I want to be especially careful, because I know this is where fear lives.
I have never said that safeguarding doesn’t matter. I have never said that women’s concerns about safety are invalid. What I’ve said is that excluding all trans women from all women’s spaces is not the answer, and that framing trans women as inherently dangerous is both inaccurate and harmful.
Risk management is real, but risk is individual, not categorical. We don’t ban all men from being teachers because some men abuse children. We assess individuals and we create safeguards. We respond to actual behaviour, not assumed threat based on identity.
The vast majority of trans women using women’s spaces do so without incident, because they are women going about their lives. The hypothetical predator who “pretends” to be trans to access women’s spaces is not a trans woman. That’s a predator. And predators already break rules. A sign on a door has never stopped someone who is intent on harm.
I’m not asking anyone to ignore safety, i’m asking for solutions that don’t treat an entire group of people as suspects.
On schools and curriculum
Andrew wrote:
I do not believe “gender identity” should be embedded in school curriculums. Schools would be far better served focusing on conditions like ADHD or Dyslexia.
My response:
You suggest that gender identity shouldn’t be in school curriculums because gender dysphoria is rare, and that ADHD or dyslexia deserve more focus.
I’d ask: why choose? Schools can and should support children with ADHD, dyslexia, and gender diversity. These aren’t competing priorities.
More importantly, teaching children that trans people exist isn’t the same as teaching them to be trans. It’s teaching them that the world contains different kinds of people, and that difference isn’t something to fear. That benefits everyone, including the children who will never be trans but will one day meet someone who is.
On gatekeeping and diagnosis
Andrew wrote:
I find this approach where “if you feel like a woman, you’re a woman” to be incredibly dangerous, particularly for young people.
My response:
You describe the idea that people should be believed about their own identity as “incredibly dangerous.” I’d gently push back on that.
What I oppose is not assessment. It’s the idea that trans people must prove themselves to gatekeepers who may be hostile, ignorant, or simply unavailable. The current system in the UK involves years-long waiting lists, inconsistent standards, and clinicians who sometimes seem more interested in disproving someone’s identity than supporting them.
That’s not rigorous, that’s neglect.
I’ve worked with thousands of trans patients and the overwhelming majority know exactly who they are. They don’t need a panel to tell them. What they need is access to appropriate care, delivered by people who are willing and able to understand their needs.
As for detransition, yes, it happens, it’s real and it matters, but the numbers are small, and most people who detransition do so because of external pressures, not because they were “wrong” about being trans. The answer isn’t to make transition harder for everyone, it’s to provide good, individualised care that supports people wherever their journey takes them.
On rights and freedoms
Andrewwrote:
The right to freedom of expression should not trump the right of women to maintain safe, single-sex spaces.
My response:
You frame this as a conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, I don’t see it that way.
Trans women are women, their rights are women’s rights. When we protect trans women from discrimination, harassment, and violence, we are protecting women.
The framing of “competing rights” has been politically useful for those who want to roll back protections, but it’s a false choice. We can protect women’s spaces and include trans women. We can have rigorous healthcare and respect people’s autonomy. We can safeguard children and teach them about diversity.
These things only conflict if we decide they must.
Finally
I know we likely won’t agree on everything. But I hope this reply shows that I take your concerns seriously, even where I see things differently.
The door is open if you want to continue the conversation.
With respect,
Dr Helen Webberley
My postbag is always open. Write to me at helen@helenwebberley.com
Andrew did come back to me and I will create content from his further questions They are what I call the 'Gatekeeping Questions' which sometimes feel like they only get raised for trans healthcare and are those where no rational answer ever seems to be good enough.....