Building the Conservative Case for Trans Acceptance | Trans Sandwiched #23

Like a British PM once said, 'I support gay marriage because I'm a conservative'

Welcome back to Trans Sandwiched by TaraElla. Recently, I discussed the idea that the contemporary Western intellectual landscape is lacking a healthy appreciation of conservative philosophy, and how this has led to the rise of an unintellectual, reactionary style of conservatism. To fix this, I think that we need to revive an intellectual philosophical conservative tradition. I think we should at least welcome this philosophical conservatism, as one more lens to see things through, to help resolve our current social controversies. Today, I want to explore how we might approach trans issues from this kind of philosophical position.

I think that, in general, the starting point of an intellectual conservatism should be to adapt effectively to new circumstances and demands, while insisting on preserving the good things in our basic social structure. The goal is to successfully integrate the new solutions into our current social structure. This way, our shared institutions, values and social contract get strengthened in the process, while they also get to evolve to become more adaptive and responsive to the needs of people, hence staying relevant for generations to come. This stands in contrast to a reactionary approach, which just opposes and resists all proposals for change, from a place of fear or resentment. An intellectual conservatism recognizes that some change is essential for preservation ultimately, unlike the reactionary approach. Hence, for an intellectual conservative, the question is, what changes are acceptable, and even to be encouraged, because they will help us further realize our shared values, and what changes are not acceptable, because they will break the fundamentals of society.

As you can see, an intellectual conservatism does not oppose all proposals for change as a knee-jerk reaction. Rather, all proposals are assessed intellectually, and assessed as to the harm or benefit it will have on our shared values and social contract. A good application of this was seen during the gay marriage debate. While reactionary conservatives ardently opposed all attempts to advance gay marriage and even civil unions, many intellectual conservatives saw the benefits of extending marriage to gay couples, including the strengthening of the institution of marriage, the re-establishment of the norm of life-long commitment, and the affirmation of the value of equality of all individuals before the law. Ultimately, the intellectual conservative view provided important arguments that won the marriage equality debate. On the other hand, the proposal of abolishing marriage, that came from the more radical quarters of the gay community, was rightly opposed by intellectual conservatives, because it would only lead to the destruction of our shared institutions and values. It was with the help of intellectual conservatives that the gay community ultimately chose, and got, marriage equality, rather than marriage abolition.

I propose that we start applying the same lens to the trans issues currently under debate. Currently, there are many proposals for change out there regarding the topic of gender broadly speaking. Some of these proposals are clearly at odds with our shared values and social contract. For example, there is no reason that free speech should be compromised, or gender itself should be 'abolished', nor would this benefit trans people. An intellectual conservatism needs to firmly oppose these radical ideological programs, and guide the trans community towards more productive reforms. However, reactionary conservatives are also using these extreme proposals as an excuse to resort to their habitual knee-jerk position, to blanketly oppose all trans-related reforms and social changes. Not only has this approach been discredited by history (given that gay marriage has not destroyed families), it also disaffirms many of our long-standing shared values, including compassion, open-mindedness, accommodating the less fortunate, equal opportunity for all, and more. As you can see, the reactionary approach is basically anti-conservative from an intellectual conservative point of view!

The challenge for an intellectual conservative position on trans issues is therefore to find and support proposals for change that will help integrate trans people into society as productive members with equal opportunities, while preserving, or even strengthening, our shared values and institutions. I think anti-discrimination provisions in housing and employment would fit into this category. Ensuring adequate and affordable access to evidence-based health care for gender dysphoria would be another example. Going forward, there needs to be more discussion about what else could fit into this category, and what does not.

Trans People Are Not All The Same. Let's Face It. | Trans Realist #7

Refusing to acknowledge our differences is hurting us in many ways.

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.

Today, I want to talk about another controversial topic: the fact that not all trans people are the same, or even similar, in our experiences, and the way our gender identity developed. The denial of this fact, the reluctance to talk about it, has caused various unexpected consequences: non-trans people turning to the Blanchard typology to understand us, some trans people feeling excluded from the trans community, and some even finding refuge in anti-trans gender critical philosophy, to name a few. I know that some people think that unity is everything, and everything done in the name of unity is justified. But this artificial unity based on denying our differences clearly isn't working.

The trans community has its own historical problems with hierarchy, gatekeeping and exclusion. I guess this is why a taboo against talking about our differences developed. But now that trans issues have gone mainstream, it is unsustainable, because even the non-trans people out there can see that we are not all the same. The trans community's refusal to provide an account of our differences has led some people to seek out unsound theory like the Blanchard typology, because it at least tries to explain the vast differences seen among trans people. Quite a few people have actually told me that this is the exact reason they came to be interested in Blanchard's theory. It's bad news for the trans community, because if people are turning to the Blanchard typology, it would hinder them from developing a proper understanding of trans people and gender dysphoria. This is why, if we don't honestly explore the differences among trans people, others will do it for us, and it will be in a way that is unsound and unfair to trans people.

Another problem with the refusal to acknowledge differences is that a vague, one-size-fits-all narrative is all that is left, and many trans people themselves find it unsatisfactory to explain their condition. Many trans people, especially when they are done with the initial stages of transition, start searching everywhere for a satisfactory explanation of how their life has turned out, being unable to find it in the conformity of the trans community. I guess this is why some trans people end up embracing gender critical philosophy, despite its inherent anti-trans attitude. Some even end up being spokespeople for the gender critical movement. Trans activists like to label them as self-hating people who have betrayed the community. But could it be the truth instead, to say that the trans community failed them in the first place?

Another thing is, in my own experience, under the cover of the vague one-size-fits-all philosophy, the trans community is often more welcoming to some narratives than others. For example, the mainstream narrative of the trans community is skewed towards those who became aware of being trans after puberty or in young adulthood. This is the reason why 'egg culture' is a thing. To be honest, I don't understand 'egg culture' any more than cis people do. This is because I have felt trans for as long as I have known gender. In other words, I didn't have an 'egg' to 'crack' in the first place. Instead, the development of my gender identity was largely intertwined with my childhood experiences. For this reason, I've often felt like I've been sort of 'left out' of the trans community. The subtle exclusion of so-called 'early onset' trans people is basically intra-trans discrimination, and it needs to end. Without being able to talk about the differences between 'early onset' and 'later onset' gender dysphoria, we are unable to even speak about the existence of this exclusion, let alone change it.

Gender Dysphoria and the Trans Language Wars | Trans Realist #6

Why it is counter-productive to apply the new terminology to everyone

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.

Today, I want to talk about a controversial topic: the trans-related language wars. Much has been said about this topic, however, I haven't seen anyone discuss this phenomenon from the perspective of gender dysphoria. As I've said before, it's important to put gender dysphoria back at the center of the trans discourse, and it's time we did so with the debate over so-called gender-inclusive language.

I think the relationship between gender dysphoria and gender-inclusive language is complicated at the moment. To begin, I think we should acknowledge that the new language was designed with the purpose of relieving gender dysphoria in the first place. Trans people have health care needs like everyone else, but information and care that is delivered using the normal terminology could trigger gender dysphoria in many trans people, which could then lead to avoidance of seeking proper health care, for example. Hence the invention of terms like 'people who menstruate' for trans men, so they can discuss health problems around the topic of menstruation without being called women, for example. Therefore, there is indeed a need for such terminology when delivering health care and services for trans people specifically.

The problem is that, in recent years, the new terminology has been applied in situations that are not specifically targeted at trans people, meaning that some non-trans people feel like they have been forced to use the new terminology without even being asked first. Moreover, when non-trans people object to the new terminology, they are sometimes accused of being 'transphobic' by activists. This has led to a feeling among some people that traditional terms like 'women', 'mother', and so on are being erased. This is now a major problem objectively, having become a political topic in countries like the UK and Australia. It is also an issue that has made many feminists skeptical of trans rights, unfortunately. Therefore, in regards to the move to extend the new terminology to the mainstream, given the backlash generated by this move, and the resultant harm to trans acceptance, from a gender dysphoria point of view, I believe the cons clearly outweigh the pros.

The extension of the new terminology into the mainstream has often been justified on grounds of being inclusive. However, how necessary is this move in being 'inclusive'? It's not as if trans people would find it offensive that a service designed for the mainstream, where 99% of users are not trans, would use mainstream language to describe things. Most trans people understand that we are a small minority, and would not expect the world to be designed around our specific needs. All we ask is for care and sensitivity to be applied when you are actually dealing with trans people.

On the other hand, applying the new language as the 'new standard' for everyone is more problematic than most activists would acknowledge. For example, a form that describes everyone who had given birth in their lives as a 'birthing parent', and allows the choice of 'mother' only as a subset of 'birthing parent', implies that 'mother' is only a subset of 'birthing parent', which challenges traditional notions of motherhood going back to the earliest civilizations. A form that uses 'mother' by default, but allows changes when used by trans men, would imply something very different, that motherhood is still a concept that stands alone, and is not part of some 'birthing parent' umbrella. As you can see, the approach of applying the new terminology to everyone is going to offend many more people. Given what we need is more understanding and acceptance of trans people, I don't see why we should adopt an approach that many people find offensive.

In conclusion, my view is that there is a place for the new gender-inclusive terminology. However, it would be best to limit its use to situations specific to trans people, for example when delivering care to a trans person, or in health services that specifically cater to the LGBT community. Forcibly applying the new terminology on non-trans people is seen as offensive by many people, and is going to hurt trans acceptance and understanding. The cons clearly outweigh the pros, if the objective is to help trans people living with gender dysphoria.