The identities of many cis women and cis men are almost exclusively expressed through gender stereotypes. Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc. are several individuals who profit and express their identities in accordance with gendered stereotypes. Beyonce, Madonna, so many female celebrities i could hardly count them on my fingers use gendered stereotypes about women to express their femininity to others.
Why is it that transgender people are blamed for using these stereotypes as a means of communicating their identity when cisgender people are frequently not taken to task for doing so?
If your focus is almost exclusively on transgender people as enforcing gender roles to the exclusion of some of the strongest cisgender examples in media, you are not pointing out anything special, you are prejudiced.

In advocating for a gender free world, I take it that Antony is advocating for a world in which transgender people no longer feel the need to appeal to gender stereotypes just to get their identity taken seriously and accepted by others. Transgender people wouldn’t even be referencing gender stereotypes as their claims to legitimacy if cisgender and heterosexual people had not set up the game that way in the first place!

1. Refers to transgender identity and existence as “transgenderism” which itself is a beautiful way of stigmatizing the identity and making it sound like an ideology and not a result of a combination of biological and social processes which arent immediately discernible to us and are not a byproduct of ideological conviction. Transgender activists have on several occasions asked that this sort of language not be used to describe their experiences which are not an “ism”, like being a lesbian is not “lesbianism” nor is being gay “gayism”. These are phenomenological experiences which people build terminology around, they are not isms.
2. Continues to talk about transgender identity as though it is a filth that has spread to South Asia, as if some of those cultures have not had long term associations and labels for transgender people within those communities.
3. Continues to talk about transgender women in women’s prisons as “men entering women’s prisons” and generally until pressed by Antony as just men in general.
4. Refers to gender reassignment surgery for trans women as “a man who has had his penis cut off.” Sexual reassignment surgery does not involve the removal of a penis in almost the vast majority of cases for Christs sake. No one is cutting anything off, it is restructured.
Is the editor really confused about why transgender activists don’t seem particularly keen on engaging with her when language like this is used to describe their experiences? The way she puts it makes it sound as though no transgender activists want to fess up and defend their bad arguments, but if we’re honest with ourselves the real reason is that they do not want to enter a conversation where the majority of their basic rights to set the groundwork for a conversation about themselves are not respected.

“Gender-Critical” feminists have advocated for this label because they find the label TERF to be both a slur and a misnomer, and yet when transgender activists request that they not be referred to as genders they do not identify with, that their surgeries are not described in such incredibly indelicate ways as cutting body parts off, and that their existence and deeply held internal convictions not be reduced down to ideology or called “transgenderism”, their pleas are ignored.
The reason the editor could not find an activist to speak with her until now is because she is obviously a hostile member of the groups that transgender people take great pains to avoid. It’s not exactly a mystery why no one wants to talk to you when it is plainly obvious over the course of the conversation they will be disrespected several times.

Bravo to Louise Antony for providing such killer arguments in this article. It was extremely relieving to see someone approach the debate with nuance without relying on abstract sex denialism as their main approach. Every time I see a philosopher (especially a cisgender one at that!) engage this cogently on transgender matters my blood pressure lowers and I have more hope for the discipline in the future. Thank you for providing such cutting and empirically substantiated arguments!