Facts vs Feelings in the Trans Debates & Discourse | TaraElla & Friends #6

TE: Welcome back to TaraElla and Friends. One of the things that have been troubling me about the cultural and political discourse of the past few years is that people have an inability to discuss things in a rational and productive way. This is especially true for trans issues, and it's turned everything into a bitter stalemate. I have explored again and again the various reasons for this, including the adverse influence of certain postmodern critical theories. But what we need is a way to get out of this situation. This is where I'm running out of ideas.

AT: While it's useful to think about why things have turned out a certain way, it's perhaps not too productive to dwell on theoretical causes. Besides, dwelling on theoretical analysis can dehumanize the whole thing, which leads to maladaptive solutions. I mean, people often act a certain way because of their emotions, because they are flawed human beings, and not because of any theory or planned action.

TE: I think that's a good point. While we have to intellectually combat bad theories, we also have to acknowledge that much of the tribal us-vs-them behavior is simply rooted in irrationality. I think with things like cancel culture and twitter mobs, it's often more irrational behavior than rational behavior. The thing is, I am the kind of person who has a hard time understanding irrational behavior.

AT: I think you got to start from the emotions. I get that you are a facts over feelings person, but many people don't base their actions on intellectualism like the way you do. They are more gut feeling people. Hence, if they feel hurt, or they feel fearful, they will erect borders. This is where the us-vs-them comes from. In complicated and sensitive issues, like trans issues, we see this very often. I think the key is dealing with the emotions adequately, so things don't get overheated.

TE: I am more of an ideas person. I mean, my plan to get this conversation going is by getting people to talk, to start a conversation. That's why I propose that all sides of the debate should put forward ideas that could satisfy the concerns of the other sides. It's why, I am interested in hearing all sorts of proposals to the current controversies, as long as it is suggested in good faith, and not completely dismissive of the concerns of other stakeholders. I mean, we are not going to magically agree in the first instance. But if we are willing to work with ideas that we don't entirely agree with at first, I think we'll get to a better consensus eventually. That's why I think it's important to be open-minded. However, with emotions mixed in, some people become shut off, defensive or even hostile. How could we deal with that?

AT: Firstly, simply acknowledging the emotions involved can go a long way. If you are moderating a discussion, it could be a good idea to assure everyone that they are supported, that their needs and concerns will be taken seriously. This is especially important when talking about issues where there are many stakeholders with sensitive concerns, like trans issues. I think that, when a concern is raised, as long as it's raised in good faith, we should acknowledge it, and promise to take it seriously. We will deal with it so everything works in practice, and not just in theory. On the other hand, if there is an attempt to belittle the lived experience of other people, we should also discourage that, and instead promise to take it seriously too. We should actively make it a discussion where everyone's concerns will be taken seriously, and make it clear that we favor solutions that will work for everyone, that actually cares about everyone's needs in practice and not just in theory.