How the Culture Wars are Poisoning the Trans Conversation

They hamper free speech and productive discussion. And both sides are responsible.

I think one thing really needs to happen before we can truly have a rational and productive discussion about trans issues: the culture wars surrounding the trans conversation must be brought to an end. There's been endless argument about who is responsible for the culture wars, but I think the mutual finger pointing needs to end. I think both sides are responsible, and we need to push back on them both.

The first reason why the culture war must end is that it is hampering free speech itself. Without free speech and a healthy and functional marketplace of ideas, there can be no fair consideration of the issues, and no development of sound consensus and good policy. From left-wing activists attempting to de-platform and marginalize voices like Dave Chappelle and JK Rowling, to right-wing activists going after Disney, Bud Light and Target, the trans culture wars have made speaking out on trans issues more and more risky every year. No matter who is doing it, and what the target is, there is an overall effect from all these actions: it makes people less willing to speak what they truly think, when it comes to trans issues. Most people would rather stay silent than suffer the social punishment both sides are very willing to inflict. This leads to the trans discourse being increasingly dominated by more and more extreme voices on both sides. These players are not interested in compromise or productive solutions, and their dominance will only make the conversation more and more toxic, driving even more reasonable people away. Something has to change. There needs to be a circuit breaker of some kind, just to restore free speech and rational debate on this topic.

Besides securing free speech itself, the quality of the conversation is also important. Right now, both sides have been emotionally worked up by the culture wars and driven into ever more extreme positions. The heavy anti-trans bias from right-wing media outlets and the overly defensive, 'everything is transphobic' attitude of certain trans activists represent the two unhelpful extremes of this emotional spiral. Together, they reinforce each other in a vicious cycle, making the discourse more and more toxic, and rational discussion less and less feasible over time.

Take the issue of medical intervention in trans-identified young people, for example. I have long supported taking a very cautious approach in the management of such patients. However, I have also long argued against a culture war approach to this issue. In several European countries, there are now expert-led, consensus-driven, evidence-based guidelines supporting a more cautious approach, which I think is the ideal way to address this issue. However, in America, the whole thing has been turned into a partisan political football. In state after state, blanket bans on medical treatment in trans minors, some which might also affect non-medical talk therapy (and hence counterproductive from a health point of view), have passed with almost unanimous support of the Republicans, inevitably against the unanimous opposition of the Democrats. In some cases (e.g. Montana), it has even led to open displays of Republican vs Democratic hostility. This dynamic has effectively turned the whole issue into a partisan topic, meaning that compromise has become very difficult. In particular, many Democrats are now reluctant to visit the issue at all, lest they be seen as supporting the Republican culture war agenda. Moreover, those pushing for bans on medical treatment in teenagers almost always have very negative attitudes towards trans people in general, and in some cases their legislation have even impacted the medical treatment of trans adults (which I think just shows how culture wars lead to bad policy). This inevitably leads to the trans community putting up an even more defensive attitude, with many now refusing to even entertain the idea that there might need to be more restrictions on younger patients with gender dysphoria. I'm frustrated with this attitude, but I don't think it's fair to blame it all on trans activism either, given how anti-trans forces have been operating lately. The whole thing has become highly dysfunctional, and I don't think we can actually have a healthy discussion on this serious topic without shutting down the culture wars first.

In conclusion, to get over this madness, and to come up with truly productive solutions, we must actively try to put an end to the culture war around trans issues. To do this effectively, we must take a stand not with the left or the right, but against the culture war mentality itself. We should also not allow either side to avoid responsibility. To the left-wing activists, we need to insist that it is not OK to label everything transphobic, shut down inconvenient viewpoints or de-platform people more generally. We need to insist that it is OK to disagree, and to have reasonable concerns about proposals for change. Also, philosophical disagreement is a normal part of life, and trans issues are no exception here. To those on the right, we need to insist that the current deliberate bias in reporting on trans issues, and the moral panic it has generated, must come to an end. Objectivity and fairness should be the first requirement in journalism, and individuals and media outlets that fail in this regard should be strongly criticized. Finally, it should be OK to debate how trans people are to be accommodated. What is not OK is the wholesale dehumanization of trans people. This means that, whatever differences we have on specific issues, we should all be able to agree that ideas like 'eradicating transgenderism from public life' are totally beyond the pale.

Let's Focus on the Practical Side of Trans Issues (Summary)

This is a summary of the article What is a Woman: the Non-Woke Trans View by TaraElla.

The 'what is a woman' question is often raised in the context of how to accommodate trans people. However, the emphasis on this point of abstract philosophical disagreement has turned what should be a practical issue into a political football. In reality, questions around the practical accommodation of trans people do not depend on agreement on this matter of abstract philosophy.

Even if you believe trans women are women (like I do, at least to some extent), you can still acknowledge that there are very real biological differences between trans women and biological women, and this needs to be taken into account when it comes to how best to accommodate trans people. And even if you don't agree that trans women are women (which I totally respect), you could still agree that trans people deserve the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness just like everyone else, and hence society should provide reasonable accommodations for trans people. Indeed, polls suggest that, even though a narrow majority of people disagree with the 'trans women are women' philosophy, a strong majority still support the principle that trans people should not face discrimination in their lives.

We should focus on the practical common ground here, i.e. the need to find good solutions to accommodate trans people while respecting the rights of other stakeholders, rather than focus on abstract philosophical disagreements, like the culture warriors on both sides want us to.

Make Trans Normal Again: the Non-Woke Trans View

Let's face it: trans people were able to live more normally 20 years ago compared with today, which means things are actually worse than 20 years ago. I often point this out to well-meaning progressives who like to say how far we've come on trans acceptance. Well, we've indeed gone far, but in the backwards way. Obviously, something needs to change.

I think people with political agenda, on both the left and the right, are responsible for this mess. Most of them aren't even trans, but they use trans people and trans issues like a political football. The postmodern left in particular likes to use trans people to attack existing social norms around sex and gender, with no clear benefit to actual trans people's lives. Their aim is to deconstruct, and ultimately 'abolish' gender, which is not what most trans people want. I'm certainly staunchly against this deconstructionist agenda myself. It has made the trans discourse weird, by introducing both language and ideas that only serve to confuse people, and ultimately bring on a backlash against trans people. The results of this backlash are now clear to see, especially in the American South, were trans people are seriously thinking about fleeing their states due to a tsunami of anti-trans laws. (Meanwhile, the postmodernists aren't even apologizing for the damage that they have done to us. Trans frustration against postmodernism is very well justified indeed.)

On the other side, we have the reactionary right, who have been particularly angered by recent developments like the legalization of gay marriage across the West. They want nothing more than to wage a culture war to reclaim their 'lost ground', to ideally force all LGBT people back into the closet if possible. They are now very open about their aim of 'eradicating' LGBT representation and ideas from public life. They also like to give a big platform to postmodern left activists, because their words and actions tend to portray us in the weirdest, most uncomfortable light. This is why, in documentary after documentary, in talk show after talk show, right wing culture warriors would only feature the most outrageous far-left activists, with reasonable trans people entirely ignored. The biased reporting from the right thus is also a major contributor to a very skewed perception of trans people in the media, where the majority of trans people are seen as politicized activists, and not as people who just want to quietly live their lives. This is extremely unfair to the silent majority of the trans community.

To get out of this mess, we need a new perspective on trans issues. One that is geared to normality. This would have to mean thinking about trans issues in a way that is consistent with the long-standing values and consensus of our society. Up until now, the postmodern left has been using trans people to challenge society's norms, and the reactionary right has happily used this to demonstrate that trans people are supposedly harmful to society.

What we need is a trans discourse that is aimed at assimilating trans people into the norms of society, so that the two are in harmony rather than in opposition. Moreover, to advance trans acceptance and get basic trans rights secured, the most important thing we need is a consensus on how trans people should be accommodated. A consensus can only be built along the lines of the values that are already accepted by the majority of a given society. This is another reason why proposals for trans integration need to be aligned with existing values and practices as much as possible.

I believe the best thing we can do for trans people is to 'make trans normal again'. We owe it to the silent majority of trans people out there to make it happen.

A Classical Liberal View on the Anti-Trans Culture War

 

This video is based on the articles The Postmodern Right Anti-Trans Movement Just Keeps Getting Worse and The Postliberal Right is Coming for Your Most Fundamental Freedoms by TaraElla.

In replying to a recent article by Christopher Rufo, I pointed out the philosophical differences between classical liberals and the culture warrior right, and why an anti-woke coalition between the two simply won't be happening.

To put it simply, the postliberal right will destroy existing safeguards against state actions that curtail people's fundamental freedoms, and in the process harm people's lives. As classical liberals, we believe in building a good order in society based on freedom, and we will not accept a bad or unjust order that is imposed by authoritarian means.

***

In saying that the postliberal right is anti-trans, I'm not talking about individuals who might have concerns about the demands of some trans activists. I have long defended the free speech of these individuals, and I have also argued that their voices should be heard and considered in good faith. In a world where the anti-trans movement has been thoroughly defeated, there will still be plenty of room for those who want to raise concerns about trans activist demands. True liberals like myself will make sure of that, as part of our defense of free speech and respectful debate. However, what I'm talking about here is the existence of a movement whose purpose is to demonize a whole community, defined by their immutable characteristics, which is by definition anti-liberal. The existence of such a movement can't be denied anymore, especially after Michael Knowles infamously called for eradicating 'transgenderism' in his CPAC speech.

***

Furthermore, this movement is postmodern, in that it is propped up by severely biased reporting on trans people and trans issues. It is postmodern because speech is in the service of power here, not in the service of finding the objective truth. The most outrageous excesses of trans activists and the most negative examples of trans individuals are highlighted, and the reasonable trans voices are ignored. There is no concern for objectivity and balance at all. It is all about building a narrative to whip up anti-trans sentiment.

***

Importantly from a liberal point of view, the anti-trans movement serves to normalize the postliberal right's approach to politics. As previously described, it normalizes the postmodern approach to news reporting, which treats speech and discourse as a means to wield power, rather than to seek the objective truth. However, this is just the beginning. By whipping up anti-trans sentiment, the anti-trans movement also seeks to turn such sentiment into illiberal policy, which would destroy fundamental pillars of the long-standing liberal consensus. If you look at history, creating moral panics has always been a favorite tactic of authoritarians, to justify taking away people's liberty down the road. Hence, the anti-trans movement needs to be seen in the bigger picture: as a tool of the postmodern-postliberal right, who are using it to destroy fundamental liberties.

***

The silver lining here is that, in fighting the anti-trans movement, both the postmodern biased reporting part, as well as the attempts to legislate to take away fundamental liberties, we can make a stand for classical liberal values, and demonstrate why we still need these values in the 21st century. In recent years, as a result of the rise of 'woke' postmodernism and its associated ideologies on the far-left, liberal values have been seen as outdated or even bad for social justice by many of the younger generation. By highlighting that the fight against the anti-trans movement is basically a fight for liberal values against post-truth authoritarianism, we can make classical liberal values like free speech and objectivity credible and popular again.

Building the Successful Compromise on Trans Issues

This is a summary of the article Building the Trans Compromise that Will Get Off the Ground by TaraElla

The Scientific Case for Trans Acceptance is Simple and Necessary

And it's time we fight to put it back on the table

One thing I have been concerned about for several years now is the de-emphasis of the medical scientific case for trans acceptance, and the damage this is doing. Certain activists have attempted to silence the case for trans acceptance based on the medical scientific understanding of gender dysphoria, doing everything from discouraging people from discussing this in the trans community, to de-platforming those suspected of being 'transmedicalist', whatever that is supposed to mean. This has led to the medical scientific case for trans acceptance not being heard much in the trans discourse. In contrast, anti-trans forces often use their limited understanding of science in their arguments. While their use of science is flawed, it often goes unchallenged because the other side is unwilling to talk in scientific terms at all. All this has ultimately led to the appearance that anti-trans ideology is scientific and objective, and that clinical treatment for gender dysphoria is no more than a lifestyle choice, which ultimately leads to policies like withdrawing Medicaid funding for such treatments. This is clearly a problem we need to address, if only for the sake of preserving access to medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.

The medical scientific case for trans acceptance is simple. In clinical medicine, conditions are often diagnosed based on repeated observation of the same pattern in different patients, at different times and in different places. The validity of gender dysphoria as a medical condition is thus established because of it being repeated observed in thousands and thousands (or perhaps millions) of patients, across at least the past 100 years, and all over the world. This is actually a reliable method of establishing the validity of a condition, because things don't present in the same way randomly.

Moreover, the establishment of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis means that doctors can attempt to treat it. The goal of treatment in medicine is to alleviate pain and improve the quality of life. Ideological considerations like whether a certain kind of treatment conforms to social expectations are not relevant here, because they would distract from putting the patient first, which is what a doctor should be doing. (It is this point that I'm worried people like Jordan Peterson might not fully understand.) Instead, a doctor simply practices medicine in an evidence-based way, and the evidence shows that medical transition is the only treatment that is effective for relieving gender dysphoria that meets the established diagnostic criteria. While there is indeed a minority of cases of transition regret, many more patients end up benefitting from the treatment, which is why it is medically justified. To withhold the treatment from the patients who would benefit from it would be unethical indeed.

Those arguing that we can't prove the validity of trans identity and gender dysphoria because we don't know enough about the biomolecular pathways (e.g. DNA, genes, proteins) that lead to gender dysphoria simply don't know how medicine works. Doctors never start out knowing the biomolecular basis of a condition, and they certainly can't wait until the biomolecular basis is known before they start treating patients. If medicine functioned in this way, then doctors would need to refuse to treat a large number of conditions, because we still don't fully understand their biomolecular basis even today. However, to do so would be unethical, because to withhold treatment from patients who would benefit from it, while the treatment is available and established to be effective, would be unethical. Furthermore, the fact that we (meaning humankind) don't know the biomolecular basis yet is the fault of our understanding of the science not being advanced enough, and not the fault of the patients needing treatment. Society certainly should not punish the patients for our own lack of knowledge! Gender dysphoria is no different from the other conditions that fall into this category here.

The activists calling for the 'de-medicalization' of trans identity aren't helping either. They have encouraged several common misconceptions, like how 'de-medicalization' is needed for the acceptance of non-binary identities, or how those opposed to 'de-medicalization' only accept trans people on the condition that they have certain surgeries. However, what these misconceptions share is the idea that it is the surgical treatment that makes trans identity 'medical'. This, in itself, is perhaps the biggest misconception. As previously discussed, the medical validity of gender dysphoria is based on repeated clinical observation and diagnosis. The establishment of gender dysphoria as a condition is established prior to any treatment, and it is not in the option to undergo treatment that medical validity is established. Therefore, we actually do not need 'de-medicalization' in order to accept non-binary people etc. Recent trans rights reform proposals that recognizes these identities are also not dependent on the idea of 'de-medicalization' at all.

I believe the calls for 'de-medicalization' actually have less to do with non-binary acceptance and more to do with postmodern philosophy, particularly Foucauldian philosophy, which forms the foundation for what is called Queer Theory. Foucault was anti-medicine and arguably anti-objectivity, and these attitudes have carried over to Queer Theory. However, this model is highly unsuitable for arguing trans acceptance and trans rights. A decent society would certainly do their best to accommodate people with special needs. The medically established validity of gender dysphoria means that trans people should qualify as having special needs needing accommodation. However, Foucauldian philosophy, Queer Theory and activism based on these ideas actively deny the medical scientific case for trans acceptance, and instead places trans rights within  a framework of critical anarchism, where it doesn't belong at all. This serves to confuse the whole argument for trans acceptance and accommodation, and gives room for reactionary right-wing culture warriors to cast doubt upon the validity of trans identity, and ultimately take away trans rights. Therefore, at least in the current moment, I believe that Foucauldian philosophy and Queer Theory are enemies of trans acceptance, and I will be fighting against these ideas very hard at least until the scientific case is heard loudly again.

Why LGBT People are Skeptical of Organized Politics | TaraElla Clips

This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.

I'm old enough to remember how organized conservatism created a moral panic over gay marriage, to distract from the fact that the 2003 Iraq War was unjustified, costly, and simply immoral.

If we allow organized conservatism to continue to link otherwise good values with discriminatory policies, traditional values like modesty, decency, family values and so on will suffer, because they will be associated by young people with homophobia and bigotry. In other words, organized conservatism is giving traditional values a bad name, by associating them with discriminatory policy. Anyone who wants to preserve traditional values should push back against this.