Most Americans believe that gender is determined by biological sex and thus fixed at birth, according to survey data from the Pew Research Center. At the same time, roughly two-thirds of Americans favor policies, like New York State’s proposed Equal Rights Amendment, that offer legal protections for the trans-identified. The seeming tension in these two findings suggests a simple truth: Americans just want to be left to live their lives and think others should be granted the same.

The logic of this “live-and-let-live” approach is straightforward: if I leave others to go about their business—even when I object to their choices—I’ll be afforded the same courtesy. Crucially, live and let live is a two-way street. Both parties must be equally prepared to tolerate choices and beliefs with which they disagree.

But no man is an island, and no life is entirely private. What happens when my desire to live a certain way interferes with another’s desire to live a different way? What happens when the other side isn’t willing to set certain disagreements aside? A live-and-let-live philosophy cannot resolve such disputes, and they inevitably emerge in a pluralistic society.

In his piece, Gilden points out that “trans women, acting on the conviction that they are real women and aspiring to live and enjoy recognition as such, demand the right to participate in women’s sports.”

He asks: "In either scenario, how can one side or the other live and let live when their realities, desires, and claimed rights directly conflict?"

The author later argues that "Refusing to contest institutionalized gender ideology in the hope of fostering a mutual live-and-let-live philosophy is misguided."

In places like New York, politicians are more than willing to use the force of government to force their gender ideology down all of our throats, according to Gilden.

"The NYSED guidelines don’t content themselves with live and let live. Instead, they aggressively assert the contrived right of minors to transition over the long-standing and repeatedly affirmed constitutional right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children."

Gilden isn’t wrong. There are those seeking to weaponize the state against others who disagree with them. These people must be stopped.

But outside of the government issue, I think most can agree that people should be allowed to live as they want as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. In light of this, people can figure out how to navigate the tension between trans-identified individuals and those seeking to protect female athletes and women’s spaces without the intervention of the state.

Forcing female athletes to compete against biological men not only robs them of opportunities, but also places them in physical danger. One could argue that the threats to safety are enough to warrant a government response – and I wouldn’t disagree. There have been plenty of reports of female athletes being injured by men during sporting events.

Creating a separate sports category specifically for transgender individuals might be a solution. Several others have suggested it, but folks on the authoritarian left don’t want to hear this idea. Indeed, an Oregon teacher lost his job just for floating the idea as a possible solution. Still, this does not mean such an idea could not catch on.

Another area of concern is education and parental rights. Many school districts across the nation have implemented policies requiring teachers and other members of school staff to keep parents in the dark if their children begin exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria. In many instances, schools help to facilitate social “transitions” to the opposite gender without the knowledge or consent of their parents. This is yet another way progressives weaponize government for the advancement of their ideology.

Laws that prevent schools from engaging in these practices are warranted because they are clear violations of parents' rights. However, school choice is also a solution. When parents can more easily remove their children from schools that push gender ideology, they have the power to shield their children from being indoctrinated.

School choice not only promotes liberty in education, but also gives parents what they need to ensure their children are being educated instead of influenced. Moreover, removing more children from a system that pushes this agenda will harm the pocketbooks of the folks who think schools should be places of indoctrination.

The key is to remove government from the situation as much as possible. The state’s only role should be to protect the rights of all who are involved. Politicians should not decide where and how children are educated, nor should they push a particular ideology on schoolchildren. When the state is removed, people can work together to figure these disputes out on their own.