Nov 8, 2023

If people aren’t gender-neutral then why should marriage be?

That’s the big question that writer Glen Scrivener has been posing recently to those he meets who say no to transgender ideology but yes to same-sex marriage.

As the tide has turned against trans ideology in the past few years, more and more people are feeling comfortable saying publicly that they reject it. But many of these same people remain committed to same-sex marriage, which they regard as a separate issue.

Scrivener argues that supporters of real marriage have an opportunity here. Since it is the idea that people are gender-neutral that is being rejected, we can ask whether it’s really right to treat marriage as gender-neutral either.

Marriage is “the ultimate sex-defined space”, says Scrivener, and its integrity should be safeguarded no less than other sex-defined spaces, like changing rooms and sports teams.

Opening up sex-defined spaces to members of the opposite sex totally redefines what they are, says Scrivener. “Adding male-male and female-female relationships to the definition of marriage doesn’t expand marriage — it completely redefines it”, just as “adding biological males to your definition of female redefines ‘female’”.

Scrivener’s article is well worth reading for tips on how to make the case for real marriage to those we know who are gender-critical.

Scrivener is right that the growing pushback against trans ideology gives us a wide-open door to explain why biological sex must also matter for marriage.

Next week we’ll have a special update on where the main parties stand on key issues relating to marriage, following the party conferences last month and yesterday’s King’s Speech.