What we are saying here is not radical by any objective standard.

We have launched Radical because, in the course of current events and discourse, many people will treat what we are saying as outside the boundaries of civil dialogue — or worse, as hate crime.

Sex and gender — as concepts — are under the spotlight.

However, thanks to real-world legal and social sanctions, on top of an uneasy virtual world of online threats, there’s little space for debate. When discussion does take place, important substantive questions are too often overridden, for the same reasons debate has become stifled: the topic is an emotive one, which many people feel central not only to their wellbeing but also their identity.

And when causing offence is deemed a particularly troubling contemporary ‘crime’, and ad hominem attacks are the argument de jour, it’s unsurprising this highly personal topic has become mired in anger and affront. 

This is why we launched Radical — a campaign for truth and freedom in what’s probably best described as the ‘gender identity’ debate. To some, this will already seemed loaded. We are marking ourselves out simply by being upfront about our commitment to searching out truth.

In many cases, truth is determinable via the scientific method; in the case of moral truth, it is determinable through reasoning and values-driven deliberation and debate. We believe there are fundamental biological truths about men and women — about the distinct biological categories of ‘male’ and ‘female’ — that should ground this debate. And that the denial of these truths is not only wrong, but dangerous for our society.

We believe that respect, freedom of expression, and tolerance are crucial societal values. And that people who choose to act in ways traditionally associated with membership of the opposite biological sex should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else, all other things being equal. But that acknowledging this, however, does not equate to believing the law should mandate that biological men must be treated as women, or biological women as men — on their demand.

We believe that if an adult wishes to seek medical intervention to make their body resemble that of a member of the opposite sex, they should be free to do so. But that in the case of children, these kinds of intervention are always wrong. This is a matter of moral truth, and the danger of relativistic approaches to such matters can be seen in the long-time failure to address cases of female genital mutilation.

We are well aware that these are increasingly risky things to say. 

We come at this topic from a position particularly committed to the value of freedom — as one basic value amongst others, providing a helpful starting point for the consideration of important issues. We are open about our long-time involvement in what we would call the ‘classically liberal’ side of UK politics: our work for high-profile free-market research organisations, and our histories of participation within party politics. 

Voices from our ‘side’ have been quiet on this topic, and we hope to begin to rectify that.

Our aim, however, is to foster connections with all truth and freedom seekers, from across the so-called ‘political spectrum’. And we are committed to Radical remaining completely non-party-political, and as non-partisan — in other senses — as possible. We will remain focused, rather, on defending the natural and equal freedom of every human being, and an adherence to truth.

A final point uniting our campaign, for all we will strive to remain objective, is that we were both what used to be called ‘boyish’ when we were girls. We dressed in trousers and played football; we liked rocketships and dinosaurs. We are not traditional feminists, but we engage with this topic, on an emotional level, partly in honour of our girlhood.

What we are saying here is not radical. We have launched Radical because too many people will take it to be so.