How to Build the Post Woke Trans Movement | Trans Realist #5

It could be up to trans people to break the stalemate

Welcome back to Trans Realist, a project where I have a conversation with my fellow trans people, about what could be done to make our lives better in the real world.

Previously, I suggested a possible post-woke model of trans discourse, which will hopefully lead to a more productive discussion and a pathway forward for trans rights reforms. Such a discourse will put the focus back on gender dysphoria and the everyday needs of trans people like employment, housing and health care, and move away from the language and philosophy wars. Today, I want to talk about how we might build such a movement. I actually think that trans people are in the best position to help bring this about. Let me explain.

Trans issues have gone truly mainstream, whether we like it or not. 2022 is the year in which trans issues have truly become a routine part of national level politics, as seen in the US Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the Australian federal election, and the British Conservative Party leadership election. Unfortunately, in each of these cases, it is trans skeptical forces which have brought the issue up, and there is no reason to expect anything different anytime soon. In the face of this, trans allies, many of whom don't exactly understand the nuances of trans issues either, have often reflexively taken up the talking points of the loudest activists to argue back. What they don't understand is that these activists don't always represent the reality or the interests of many trans people. In some cases, these talking points have actually been unhelpful for us, and have given gender critical activists further ammunition to use against us. Lost in all of this is an actual understanding of trans people's lives and needs.

Without an intervention from people who actually understand what it is like to be trans, I can't see the current stalemate ending. As trans people, we have a full understanding of what it is like to live with gender dysphoria, and what it is like to live in this world as a trans person. Therefore, we are well positioned to bring this conversation back to reality. Of course, it won't be entirely easy, because the loudest voices on both sides are backed by a level of money and organization that the trans community simply can't match. However, many people are actually very interested in what trans people have to say, so we at least have an avenue to make ourselves heard.

The next problem then would be how many people we can reach. Again, we are at a heavy disadvantage here, given that the culture warriors have bigger platforms than us. However, things often start small and snowball to get bigger over time. The important thing would be to first get the message out, and get the discussion started. Every single bit helps. For example, when we see the language wars heating up again, we can gently remind people that these things don't really help trans lives, and suggest re-orientation towards priorities like employment and health care. When we see heated philosophical discussions that treat trans issues as abstract hypotheticals, we can try to bring the practical reality of gender dysphoria back into the picture. Replying to what other people out there are saying can also be a useful way to insert our voices into the conversation, and to challenge existing misconceptions on both sides. Bit by bit, we can change the conversation.

A Post Woke Approach to Trans Issues | Trans Sandwiched #22

Let's find a way to move beyond the current stalemate.

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Today, I want to talk about what a post-woke approach to trans issues might look like. As I previously described, a post-woke approach is one that acknowledges the errors of woke culture, specifically addresses those errors, but is not based on just being reactionary to the woke position. Rather, a post-woke approach is constructive, and aims to provide a better alternative.

The woke approach to LGBT issues is deeply rooted in postmodern queer theory, and thus inherits the postmodern obsession with language. This obsession has been detrimental to trans people. It has created endless meaningless culture wars that has generated nothing but backlash towards the trans community, and it has served to distract from advancing public understanding of gender dysphoria and trans lives. For example, most trans activists insist on using 'cis women', while most anti-woke people insist on using 'biological women' to describe the same people, and both groups often turn hostile if they hear the other terminology being used. I personally think this 'disagreement' is really petty, because it wouldn't change a thing about the lives of trans people objectively. Another example is how some activists seem to find fault with a lot of conventional gendered language that has been used for a long time without problems, even among the trans community. A post-woke approach to trans issues must move away from this obsession with linguistic correctness. I've generally used the terms I think would be best received by the people I'm talking to in each instance, but it is tiring to have to think about this all the time. I think we all need to be less sensitive about which particular terms are being used, and focus on the actual things people are saying.

A post-woke approach to trans issues should also uphold the core post-woke values of decency, fairness and genuineness, because, as I said before, these are the values that will heal the wounds brought on by woke culture. Here, both the woke and anti-woke approaches have fallen short. The woke approach has allowed free speech to be compromised by putting everything in terms of power and oppression, and this is neither fair nor genuine. A post-woke trans discourse should restore the respect for free speech and freedom of conscience, and nobody should be afraid to voice their genuine concerns in good faith. Extreme versions of woke culture has also pit trans people against non-trans people, and this definitely has to end.

On the other hand, the anti-woke discourse has, especially recently, uncritically adopted elements of gender critical ideology that are certainly not decent or fair to trans people. For example, the insistence that only biological sex matters and gender does not is effectively erasure of trans people, or at least trivialization of trans issues, and is not a compassionate stance. Trivialization of gender dysphoria is literally cruel to trans people. The pressure on trans people in anti-woke circles to deny the importance of their own gender identity is also incompatible with encouraging everyone to be genuine. A post-woke approach should not treat trans people like this, given that decency, fairness and genuineness should equally apply to everyone.

A post-woke approach should also bring back the sincere intellectualism that both wokeness and anti-wokeness have destroyed. The culture warrior style approach on both sides to the 'what is a woman' question is incompatible with a truly scientific and sincere approach to the matter. A post-woke approach would uphold sincere and open-minded discussion, and allow trans people's actual experiences with gender dysphoria to be heard and considered fairly. Currently, the woke side represents postmodern queer theory, and the anti-woke side increasingly represents gender criticalism. Both ideologies essentially amount to an erasure of gender dysphoria by people with an unscientific worldview. A post-woke trans discourse would end this injustice.

Finally, a post-woke approach should allow the required space to discuss trans rights reform, so we can come up with constructive solutions that work to improve the lives of trans people, while also satisfying the reasonable concerns of other parties. From time to time, I've been asked about what trans rights I want exactly. I can tell you that, in general, my wish is that trans people get an equal opportunity at employment, and have basic needs like housing and health care satisfied on an equal basis as other people. I can also tell you what is not on my trans rights agenda: firstly, I don't want the language wars to continue. Secondly, I don't care about things that only affect a very small number of relatively well-off trans people, like elite sports. Finally, I don't demand or expect every women-only space to open their doors to trans women. I respect that people have freedom of association, and I'm certainly not going to force my way into a club that doesn't want me there. However, beyond these principles, I can't tell you exactly what trans rights reforms are needed, because I don't know exactly what barriers are faced by other trans people in their quest for employment, housing and health care. This is something we need to discuss and work out together. As long as the requests for reform are reasonable, and the concerns of other stakeholders have been adequately dealt with, I hope that the good people out there will be open to necessary reforms to improve the ability of trans people to access employment and the basic needs of life.

We Must Not Trivialize Gender Dysphoria | Trans Deeper #7

Turning other people's suffering into a culture war football is evil.

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to look at a worrying development: the trivialization of gender dysphoria. Specifically, in certain circles, basic compassion for those suffering from gender dysphoria is increasingly seen as 'woke', and inhumane treatment is therefore justified as non-woke and rational.

Let me give you some examples. Treatment for gender dysphoria via medical transition is described as 'experimental', despite being the only proven effective treatment out there, and decades of evidence supporting its effectiveness. From there, such treatment, even in the context of consenting adults, is painted as questionable, and possibly in violation of the 'do no harm' principle. This 'standard' is, of course, ridiculous if we apply it equally to all of medicine in general. All medical treatment carries potential harms. If this is the way 'do no harm' is to be interpreted, then clinical medicine might as well not exist, and patients left to suffer despite the existence of highly effective treatments. Of course, nobody intends for this 'standard' to apply to all of medicine. They only apply it to gender dysphoria, because they are trivializing the suffering brought on by this condition. This culture war motivated bias is both unscientific and inhumane.

Another example is the increasing normalization of gender critical views in anti-woke circles, to the extent that gender critical activists are given many opportunities to promote their views without the other side of the argument being equally presented. One thing gender critical activists often argue is that using a trans person's preferred pronouns is 'giving in' to some kind of ideology. I have argued elsewhere why this isn't the case, but as a supporter of free speech I ultimately respect your right to say whatever you want. However, the important point is, the gender dysphoria side of the story is almost never presented as a rebuttal to the gender critical argument. The argument is that, using a trans person's preferred pronouns contributes to relieving gender dysphoria, and is therefore a decent thing to do. After hearing this argument, it is still up to you to do what you believe is right. But the argument must be available for consideration in the first place. And too often, it isn't even on the table anymore in the anti-woke world.

As I have been saying for a long time, the discourse around trans people has been dominated by everything from academic philosophy to politicized culture wars, with the focus on anything but gender dysphoria. This is totally unfair to trans people, who transition because they need to relieve their gender dysphoria in the first place. The distraction from this fact leads to less appetite for compassion towards trans people as fellow humans, and more polarization over trans issues as abstract philosophical concerns, as if they weren't affecting actual human beings. The current trivialization of gender dysphoria is the logical conclusion of all this. Therefore, it's time we talked a lot more about gender dysphoria. It needs to be at the center of the trans discourse once again.

What is a Woman, Revisited | Trans Deeper #6

Culture War Politics is Anti-Science, No Matter Which Side You're On

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to take another look at the 'what is a woman' question. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of this so-called 'debate', but given that some people believe it is important enough to keep it going, there is something else I must say on this topic.

Previously, I offered my view that an 'archetypal' definition of the words 'man' and 'woman' are closest to their long-standing historical usage, and I gave an analysis to back this up. It was well received by many people, and it also generated some controversy, as expected. This time, I am going to look at this topic from a different angle: the fact that there seems to be a culture war politics driven campaign to manufacture division on this topic, and why this is actually very anti-science.

Let's consider this fact: apart from perhaps the true believers of queer theory, for the rest of us, there is in fact very good agreement on the classification of 'women' (or 'men'). Observers, regardless of cultural background, political affiliation or generation, can clearly come to a consensus on whether particular individuals fit the words 'woman' or 'man', 98% or more of the time. The overall level of agreement here, across the population, is in fact very high by the standards of biological science, where 100% agreement is generally not the norm. The level of agreement here is actually higher than for the diagnosis of many serious illnesses, for example.

As I said last time, the only truly significant disagreements regarding the classification of both sex and gender are in the 'borderline' cases, mostly individuals who are intersex (re both sex and gender classification) and trans (re gender classification), who represent about 1% of the population at most, according to various estimates. All the recent culture war panic about 'definitions' is basically referring to no more than this very small area of disagreement. Honestly, those pushing this culture war panic remind me of the people who said that legalizing gay marriage would 'radically change the definition of marriage' and lead to the downfall of family values. Years after the vast majority of Western countries legalized gay marriage, this of course has not happened. I believe there is actually a lesson to be learned there about emotional manipulation for political purposes.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that there are some real differences in opinion here, and it is something that we have to deal with. Given that what we are talking about is a matter of biological science, I believe we should defer to the scientific way, rather than the political way, to deal with our differences here. In science, having differences of opinion among the experts is part of normal life. There might be heated debates, and sometimes people might just have to agree to disagree, at least for now. After all, if scientific matters were always comfortably settled, there would be no room for improving our understanding, no room for scientific progress, and no point to science at all! Taking comfort in the certainty of one's position is the attitude of the culture warrior, not the attitude of the good scientist. (And I intend for this criticism to apply to all sides of the debate.)

Anyone who knows something about the history of science would know that things can eventually turn out in a number of ways. In some cases, groundbreaking discoveries lead to a firm consensus eventually forming. It is often the ongoing debates that lead to the discoveries that in turn lead to the new consensus. In other cases, the disagreement drags on for generations. However, the ongoing debates can still lead us to a better understanding of the topic over time. For this process to play out in a productive and objective way, the most important thing is that everyone gets fairly examine the topic and apply their independent thinking, without pressure from any side, and that we remain open minded to all possibilities. This is why we need to resist the politicization and polarization that the culture warriors are pushing us into right now.

What is Gender Identity, Really? | Trans Deeper #5

The case for returning to a more realistic understanding

Welcome back to Trans Deeper, a show where we take a deeper look at what people are saying in the trans conversation, and whether their claims are valid or not. Today, I want to look at the issue of gender identity. I have come across many people who tell me that they don't understand the concept of 'gender identity', and it appears to be a real barrier for understanding trans people.

What is gender identity? In the trans context, it refers to our very acute sense of being aware that we identity with a gender that is not what is expected based on our biology. It is this mismatch, often present since early childhood, that gives us the high awareness of our gender identity. Hence, I think gender identity can be seen as a function of gender dysphoria, and it is the context of gender dysphoria that gives us its meaning.

I guess the trouble is that some activists have recently insisted that everyone has a gender identity. Based on conversations I have had with non-trans people, this clearly isn't true. Unlike trans people with gender dysphoria, most non-trans people don't seem to feel like they have an innate 'gender identity'. They are simply OK with the gender that has been expected of them from childhood. To ask non-trans people to accept that everyone has a 'gender identity' actually risks making them confused about trans people and trans identity. If non-trans people are supposed to be able to understand 'gender identity' simply by looking at their own experience in theory, but they actually can't feel anything like the gender identity described by trans people in reality, they might even end up dismissing the experiences of trans people.

I believe the best way to promote mutual understanding is to encourage honesty on all sides. For trans people, our innate sense of gender identity is central to our experience of life and our understanding of our gender dysphoria. If we are to be able to honestly speak about our own experience, we must be given the space to speak honestly about our gender identity. This is why the trend in certain anti-woke circles, where trans identity is routinely dismissed as 'woke', and trans people are pressured to accept gender critical philosophy and/or invalid models of transness that circumvent the concept of innate gender identity (e.g. the Blanchard typology), is something I've become really concerned about. On the other hand, non-trans people must be able to honestly speak out about their lack of feeling an innate gender identity, and their difficulty in understanding and empathizing with the experience of gender dysphoria. This is not transphobia. Rather, it is an honest description of the differences of our experiences. This honesty will be essential for building bridges and better understanding over time.