The example of 'what is a woman' illustrates the problem with reactionary culture war politics, and why it can never be a truly conservative thing. In a tribalist, whatever it takes culture war, even those who claim to 'defend' the status quo will contribute to its destruction in the process. This is because taking a politics driven, 'us vs them' culture war approach inevitably distorts and damages important parts of our cultural inheritance, and such damages could be difficult to repair even long after the culture war is over.
On the surface, the culture war activists are claiming to 'defend' the traditional dictionary definition of woman as 'adult human female'. However, using this definition as a weapon in an ongoing culture war is certainly not in line with traditional practice at all, and certainly 'complicates' the category of woman. While there has always been broad agreement with the understanding of woman to mean 'adult human female', it has not generally been used to draw a rigid line to strictly define who is in the category or not, especially in a heated, culture war context. Doing so effectively makes the formerly universally accepted definition controversial, and makes it a point of constant argument in the face of 'borderline' cases that naturally exist. The attempt at rigid classification also provides plenty of room for postmodernist activists to attack the inconsistencies in its application to various 'borderline' cases, thus justifying their argument that the category is ultimately unstable or invalid. In return, those trying to 'defend' the category will likely come up with increasingly rigid and twisted definitions that defy both science and common sense. This cycle goes on and on, until it all becomes a meaningless war of language. In the name of 'defending' the status quo, the culture war activists are actually radically changing the status quo.
This is an excerpt from the article The Authoritarian Implications of the 'What Is A Woman' Wars by TaraElla.
The backlash is not inevitable. We need to turn the ship around.
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.
Ever since the release of Matt Walsh's film 'What Is A Woman' a few months ago, there has been a lot of discussion about trans issues from the perspective of what is shown in the film, and it has not been good for public understanding and acceptance of trans people. The film takes a 'just asking questions' approach, and highlights the most controversial and weakest arguments for trans rights, so as to portray trans people and trans rights in a very bad light. As I previously said, the film itself is not very scientific, and it does not feature in-depth analyses in biology, evolutionary science, or clinical medicine. However, given how weak the so-called pro-trans arguments presented were, Walsh's side seems to win by default, on the basis of common sense. The fact they mock our side for not being able to answer 'what is a woman' isn't because they have the most scientifically sound answer. Rather, it is because they can demonstrate that some of the answers given by people on our side fly in the face of common sense, and have no basis in any kind of scientific method either. I hate to admit it, but it's true.
Even before 'What Is A Woman', the polls were already showing a substantial backslide in support for trans people in both the US and the UK, and the trend does not look like stopping or reversing any time soon. The effect of a film like 'What Is A Woman' then, would be to further accelerate and solidify the backlash. If things really get to the point of no return, trans people will needlessly suffer for a generation or more. Therefore, we need to try and turn things around, and do so quickly. There is no time to waste.
Some trans activists have argued that the current backlash is inevitable, and eventually their actions will lead to some kind of 'liberation' for all of us. However, nothing is inevitable, nor is there evidence that the current pain will lead to any kind of future utopia. This is basically accelerationist philosophy, which has no factual support in history, and is also inherently against justice and decency. Instead of entertaining unproven fantasies about the future, as trans people living in the here and now, our priority should be to improve trans lives, or at least prevent things from getting worse, in the here and now. To do this, we need to have effective arguments against the onslaught of anti-trans propaganda coming from gender critical activists and right-wing culture warriors alike. There is no substitute for having convincing arguments that are rooted in objective, observable reality.
To develop effective arguments against anti-trans propaganda, and arguments for trans rights reforms that can potentially gain widespread support, we need to be able to think and talk freely. The trans community has effectively been put in an ideological straitjacket by ardent activists, who attempt to silence or 'cancel' every idea that contradicts their supposed philosophy of liberation, which is rooted in postmodern queer theory. The attempted cancelation of several high profile trans people over the years, and their ultimate bowing to the activists' position in some cases, has served to solidify the control of postmodern queer theory over the trans community. Many people might privately disagree with the queer theory program, but they dare not speak up against it in public. As I had explained in the past, the problem with postmodern queer theory is that it is completely detached, and to some extent even in denial of, empirical scientific reality. The Foucauldian view that knowledge is always historically contingent and shaped by power, which lies at the root of queer theory, is basically incompatible with a commitment to objectivity. This is why arguments from an objective, empirical, or biological viewpoint have often been met with hostility from the queer theory activists, and hence made semi-taboo in the trans community. This has ultimately led to the proliferation of non-sensical 'arguments' in the pro-trans discourse, like the ones shown in 'What Is A Woman', as well as a profound inability to answer our critics with facts and sound logic.
This is why I have been publicly challenging queer theory, and the set of ideas it is based on, including postmodernism, Marcuse's pseudo-Freudian ideas, and critical theory more generally. Over the years, I have even extended this project to include related ideas that are not LGBT-specific, like critical race theory, so as to highlight the common faults within these ideologies. However, my arguments have sometimes been quite academic, and some people have pointed out that this is of limited effectiveness in the real world. This is why I have increasingly engaged with real world events in recent months. I have long argued against cancel culture, especially in the trans community, and I will continue to do so. I have also begun regularly responding to anti-trans arguments using facts and logic. Contrary to popular belief among the activists, it is almost always useful to engage your opponents. More debate leads us closer to the objective truth, and should be welcomed.
It looks like the cancel culture activists have found a perfect boogeyman to target trans people with
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 a look at another aspect of the controversy surrounding trans actress Hunter Schafer supposedly agreeing with a controversial Instagram post. Among other things, Schafer was called a 'transmedicalist' by many who attacked her. (Schafer has since stated that she is "not a transmedicalist".) This makes the whole incident reminiscent of the 2019 cancelation of trans YouTuber ContraPoints, who was also often called a 'transmedicalist' at the time. However, what do these people mean when they call someone a 'transmedicalist'?
From what I see, when the term 'transmedicalist' is used as a pejorative, it carries connotations of bigotry against non-binary people, discrimination against trans people who don't 'pass' as their identified gender, semi-acceptance of gender critical ideology, a 'more trans than thou' attitude, and so on. On the other hand, some trans people actually identify themselves as transmedicalists. According to these people, the defining feature of transmedicalism is the belief that 'you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans'. From what I see, most transmedicalists have no problem accepting non-binary people as part of the trans community, as long as they have gender dysphoria. I have never seen a transmedicalist who discriminates against non-passing trans people, or supports gender critical feminism. The other important thing is, most of the people being accused by online mobs of being 'transmedicalists' have actually never voiced opinions that would be considered transmedicalist by the aforementioned definition. Given these observations, it must follow that the term 'transmedicalist' used as a pejorative has no clear relation to people who actually identify as transmedicalists.
So, then, 'transmedicalist', at least as used by the online cancelation mobs, is a term that has no concrete meaning in objective reality. However, those branded with it are considered traitors to the trans community, oppressors of non-binary people, and more, and worthy of cancellation. Moreover, the accusation is generally not backed up with any concrete evidence. In other words, it is nothing but a boogeyman that is used to justify the existence of cancel culture within the trans community. As with other forms of cancel culture, the actual goal is to silence dissenting opinions, create a culture of fear, and keep the discourse in line with a certain ideology.
This is why I have adopted an anti-anti-transmedicalist attitude. My point is, you don't necessarily need to agree with the people who identify as transmedicalists, although I would say that their emphasis on gender dysphoria is a very valid point. No matter if you actually agree with real transmedicalists or not, the fact that cancel culture activists are using this term as a boogeyman, to target people in the trans community for cancellation, is not OK. It is a dangerous development we need to resist. I am anti-anti-transmed because I am for free speech, and against cancel culture.
If a big trans celebrity can be canceled for a small controversy, what hope do we have?
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.
Recently, trans actress Hunter Schafer was attacked by what I can only call a cancel culture mob, after interacting with a controversial Instagram post coming from another trans person. The post in question basically blamed non-binary people and certain forms of gender activism for Florida's decision to strip Medicaid coverage of transition related health care. Schafer commented on the post with several exclamation marks, which some people understood to be agreement. (Schafer has since stated that she is "not a transmedicalist", and does not hold any disdain towards non-binary people.)
Let me make this clear: I do not agree with the sentiment of the post in question. There is clearly a new movement aimed at making accessing health care difficult for trans adults, and it does not have anything to do with non-binary people. Also, while postmodern gender activism has been unhelpful for trans acceptance, I'm sure that people like Ron DeSantis would still be anti-trans even if it didn't exist. However, what I think is the more important thing here, is that Schafer found herself in a major controversy just for supposedly liking what another trans person said. If a trans celebrity is to receive such a level of backlash, because they appear to side with a controversial opinion, then everyday trans people would surely feel even more pressure to hide their unconventional opinions from the rest of the community. What hope is there for free speech and free thought within the trans community then?
As I recently said, trans people desperately need legal recognition and protection right now, and we won't win these things without truly resolving the concerns of various stakeholders in wider society. The only way we can get there is with free speech and rational debate. The current culture of silence is only going to maintain the stalemate in trans rights, which, as I previously explained, could ultimately put our access to transition related health care at risk.
To embrace free speech and free debate would mean allowing controversial opinions to be heard, and dealt with in good faith, whether you personally think they are correct or not. Even those of us who don't agree with the original post itself can surely acknowledge that it was coming from sincere concern. Opinions on various trans issues that come from the wider community often get much uglier than that. We need to have realistic expectations about the upcoming negotiation process with wider society, including the fact that our feelings are going to get hurt again and again. People will even deliberately upset us to make a point, but we will still have to keep calm and be the adult in the room. This is why, the trans community needs to learn to have mature discussions over issues like this, if we are to have any hope of getting trans rights back on track any time soon.
Taking Criticisms On Board, and Trying 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.
Last time, I talked about the importance of prioritizing the legal recognition of trans people, as a way of protecting access to treatment for gender dysphoria. To get any legal reform done, there must be broad based support, as we saw for success stories like gay marriage. However, this could be a problem for trans rights reforms, because the debate has been poisoned by forces from all sides, and many people have become very skeptical of everything trans. Therefore, for the sake of securing the basic rights of trans people, we need to work hard to undo the current situation, and get everyone talking on a rational basis again. I have identified several key reasons that have made people skeptical of trans rights. I will discuss each of these areas in detail, and propose ways we can address the current stalemate in each area.
1. Respecting Both Gender Identity and Free Speech As I analyzed last time, a truly accessible system of legal recognition, that can protect trans people's access to medical treatment, would necessarily involve self-identification to some extent. In this context, the term 'self-identification' merely refers to the idea that the sincere self-reported identity of trans people will be recognized by the law, perhaps with some supporting evidence to prevent people from abusing the system. This would simply be a matter of how the law operates on trans individuals, and how the government treats trans individuals. The reform would ensure that trans individuals would be treated fairly, with full respect to their gender identity. It would not create a new obligation on private individuals to recognize that identity. This means that, just like a gay couple obtaining a marriage license, a trans individual obtaining legal recognition of their gender would not affect the lives of other people. Importantly, it would not impact on anyone's free speech rights. This stands in contrast to the idea of 'self-identification' popularized by certain online spaces, where an individual's declaration of identifying as a particular gender would create social obligations on others to agree with that identity, including the enforced use of their preferred pronouns. This type of 'self-identification' creates obligations on others, and is strongly disliked by many people who have an 'I don't like to be told what to do' personality.
If we are to build support for legal recognition reforms, we must not allow the online culture's version of 'self-identification' to affect how the general public views legal self-identification. The easiest way to do that would be to bring online culture's norms into line with how the legal version of 'self-identification' would operate. This would mean that trans people can declare their gender identity, it would normally be accepted by site admins and moderators, but this would create no obligation on other people to agree, or to use particular pronouns, or otherwise limit anyone's free speech in any way. Allowing people to get used to the norms that accurately reflect the legal version of 'self-identification', and seeing that it would have no adverse effects on their free speech, would be the best way to build support for the reform.
2. Reinforcing, Rather Than Deconstructing, Gender The online culture's version of self-identification is sometimes linked to queer theory, postmodern gender theory, or other philosophies relating to gender deconstruction and abolition. Activists inspired by these theories deliberately disrupt society's common understanding of gender, in order to cause radical change of some kind. This, in turn, has caused the concept of 'self-identification' to become tainted with these radical philosophies. Gender is an important part of many people's lives, and is vital to the functioning of many social institutions. Postmodern gender activism's vision is justifiably rejected by mainstream society, and people also do not appreciate social change being undemocratically implemented. Those opposed to legal self-identification have painted the reform as backdoor gender deconstruction using social justice as an excuse. However, the fact is that legal self-identification would not require allowing people to identify with an infinite number of genders. Only the genders that are relevant to the operation of the law need to be covered. As I previously discussed, there would also be adequate safeguards against people abusing the system in bad faith. Therefore, legal self-identification actually provides no way for postmodern activists to advance gender deconstruction or abolition. Again, it shouldn't be confused with online culture's 'self-identification'.
Besides emphasizing the aforementioned point, I think those of us campaigning for legal reform could argue that recognizing trans people's gender in law would reinforce our common understanding of gender. Human brains are not computers, and there is evolutionary psychological evidence that we function on pattern recognition rather than rule operation. This is why trans people who have made an effort to present as their identified gender are generally perceived to be members of that gender in society, even where they are known to be trans. Given that trans people are already largely being seen as their identified gender in society, the law seeing them as the other gender would discredit the whole system, and make it dysfunctional in important ways. Recognizing trans people's gender in law would bring the system back into line with reality, similar to how the legalization of gay marriage brought the marriage system back into line with the reality that there are gay couples and families nowadays, thus making marriage itself more relevant and credible.
3. Recognizing Both Gender Identity and Biological Sex Differences Postmodern gender philosophy includes the belief that both gender and biological sex are social constructs, and should be deconstructed. Based on this, opponents of trans rights have accused trans activists of having an agenda to erase biological sex differences. However, the average trans person who wants their gender recognized in law certainly do not have such an agenda. They are simply campaigning to reform the law so that they can receive its full protection, like any other citizen. To assign some ideological ulterior motive to a trans person fighting for their own legal rights is unfair and dehumanizing, and is like accusing gay couples wanting to get married of being part of some bigger 'gay agenda'. To deny the average trans person's rights in the name of resisting postmodern gender activism is also unfair, cruel, and simply incompatible with the individualist social contract of Western society.
There is also no reason why a fair system that recognizes the gender of trans individuals can't also recognize biological sex differences where they are relevant. The insistence on rigid classification of all individuals as either male or female for all legal purposes simply isn't necessary, nor is it productive. Instead, the law could consider the relevance of various factors in each situation, in its approach to assign rights to people, on a case-by-case basis. In other words, just because the law recognizes the gender of a trans woman as 'female', it doesn't mean it has to ignore her different circumstances from a biological woman. For example, where it is justified, the law can still allow for the provision of single-sex spaces based on anatomy, for example changing rooms or spas, situations where anatomy is very clearly relevant. I'm sure many trans women would agree with me that such a policy is very reasonable. On the other hand, these exceptions have to be truly justified. For example, some gender critical feminists have been strongly opposed to trans women being classified as women for statistical purposes, even where it would clearly not make a significant difference overall. There is no reason that these ideologically driven demands should be accepted, because doing so makes trans women's lives harder without any benefit to biological women. What society needs to do is to come together and discuss, in a rational manner, what matters in each kind of situation. A culture of free speech and rational discourse would be most helpful here.
Powerful forces are waging war on trans people, and we need this shield to protect us.
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 what I feel is an increasingly important topic: the need to secure legal recognition of trans people, so that such legal recognition can be regularly obtained by trans individuals. I will explain in detail what this means later, but first I think we should start by looking at our current context. As my regular audience would know, I have often opposed what I consider to be trans alarmism in the past, telling people to calm down over everything from JK Rowling, to Dave Chappelle, to the British and Australian governments' rejection of certain trans-inclusive language. I gave my explanation as to why we shouldn't treat these things like the end of the world, and I stand by my judgements.
However, even by my relatively relaxed standards, I can see that this year, 2022, has been very bad for trans people in the Western English-speaking world. Anti-trans forces have gone on the attack during important national political events including the confirmation of a US Supreme Court judge, the Australian federal election, and the British Conservative Party leadership election. A record number of anti-trans bills have been proposed across America. Companies taking a pro-trans stance, from Disney to British DIY store Wickes, have been attacked by online mobs for nothing more than their free speech, as if being a trans ally is to be made taboo. Those following conservative online media would also have felt a new hostility to all things trans that simply didn't exist in the same way just two years ago. Let's be honest here: these people aren't just taking aim at activist overreach or so-called 'gender ideology'. They are waging war on the trans community as a whole.
The most compelling evidence that they are actually attacking trans people, rather than just some ideology or activism, is in the newly dismissive attitude towards gender dysphoria, and the attack on its treatment. This kind of callousness would have been quite taboo just two years ago, when everyone who criticized 'gender ideology' still emphasized their compassion towards those who have gender dysphoria. There's Jordan Peterson's comments on Elliot Page's surgeon as 'criminal', as if something ethically controversial was done, despite Page being a mentally sound adult who was able to fully consent to his treatment. There's 'What Is A Woman' presenter Matt Walsh's agreement with a tweet that stated 'it should be illegal for anyone of any age to transition'. And then there's Florida's decision to remove trans health care from Medicaid coverage, translating the aforementioned sentiments into actual policy that affects people's lives. Also, in this year alone, an anti-trans activist group called for society to 'target 100% desistence', and gender critical activists are now openly talking about keeping down the number of people who transition so as to limit the number of people who will need special accommodation. These people are clearly signalling an intention to make it harder for trans people to obtain evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria, and they don't care about the cruel effects this would have on thousands and thousands of people out there. Of all the bad things you can do to trans people, denying their treatment is clearly the cruellest of them all. Given this cruel and callous attitude, I believe that trans people and our allies are now left with no choice, but to do everything we can to prevent the medically necessary care of trans people from being taken away.
Like it or not, we don't live in a libertarian 'live and let live' utopia, and if there is no certain legal way to protect our rights, they can be taken away by bad actors. A fact of life is that, the English-speaking West is governed by the rule of law, which means that basic human rights are only safe when there is legal recognition of the situation the rights should apply to. The gay community, which used to not care too much about government recognition of their relationships, found out how important it was to have access to marriage during the AIDS crisis. Similarly, if the gender of a trans individual is not recognized by the law, it could be difficult to secure the right to health care that treats them as members of that gender, including hormones and surgery. If a trans woman is recognized legally as a woman, this would protect her doctor's right to provide her with health care like female hormones, something that is routinely provided to other women. If not, then the doctor would be prescribing female hormones to a legal male, something that is still legal right now, but some people clearly want to restrict by law, by labelling it 'experimental' or even 'unethical'. Even if prescribing female hormones to a legal male isn't outrightly banned, it could be made effectively unavailable through the threat of litigation. Moreover, while there are anti-discrimination provisions on the grounds of gender identity in some places, the concept of gender identity itself is being attacked from every angle, which means that this concept could get watered down by legal precedent over time. This is why proper legal recognition of trans individuals' gender in law is the only reliable shield we have, against people who clearly have cruel intentions towards us.
Currently, most trans people exist without proper legal recognition and protection, as evidenced by the fact that most trans people in the UK don't have a Gender Recognition Certificate. This is because it is too difficult to obtain, for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the bar for similar legal recognition is even higher in some parts of America and Australia, so things aren't better elsewhere either. Things have always been this way, and trans people have just coped in their own way, because they have been able to get on with their lives, even without the benefit of legal recognition, when trans issues weren't at the center of the culture wars. Indeed, during the whole GRC reform debate in the UK, many trans people, including myself, were of the attitude that this didn't matter, because we were just talking about a piece of paper. However, things are different now, because we are under attack by cruel forces that want to take away our health care. Legal recognition is no longer just a piece of paper, but a shield we need to protect us from, in this war we never asked for.
Therefore, going forward, I believe we need to actively campaign for systems of legal recognition that are actually accessible for everyone with gender dysphoria. I am flexible as to what this system looks like, provided that it fulfills three conditions. The first condition is that it is truly accessible for every adult citizen suffering from gender dysphoria. The second condition is that this system cannot depend on having obtained certain medical treatments, specifically because we need it as a shield against people who want to make treatment unavailable. In this context, such a system would not only provide further incentive to limit the availability of treatment, it could also be used to justify locking future trans people out of accessing treatment, through a vicious cycle of no treatment, no recognition, no protection, no way to obtain treatment, and so on. The final condition is that there is no plausible way to arbitrarily deny recognition to trans people who apply. For example, a review board stacked by an anti-trans administration with anti-trans people could use it to limit the number of people who can transition, thus fulfilling the gender critical agenda with the power of the government.
Given these conditions, I think such a system would necessarily have to depend on self-identification to some extent, although I would also accept some safeguards against people using it in bad faith. The last time a similar proposal was widely discussed was a few years ago in the UK, where the debate ended up getting derailed by concerns about bad actors applying in bad faith, and access to women's spaces and sports. The unwillingness of activists to discuss possible compromises lost us support. The reform ended up getting dumped, and the gender critical movement was empowered in the process. Given that adequate legal recognition is something we need as soon as possible, this kind of debacle is not something we can afford again.
What the activist establishment needs to recognize is that, the dire situation right now means that we really need this protection, and we don't have the luxury of making enemies out of regular people who have reasonable concerns. This is why I think we should be willing to accept compromises and limitations on the kind of issues that derailed the debate in the UK. Regarding these issues, I think it's something we all need to discuss, and I think we should welcome all kinds of proposals with an open mind, and deal in good faith with others' concerns as much as we can. This is why we should encourage free speech and free debate. We also need to reassure people that we don't have an agenda to deny biological differences, and biological sex can still be applied where relevant. I also don't mind that some people disagree with 'trans women are women', they are free to think that way and I totally respect their right to their views. In seeking legal recognition we aren't making a philosophical statement. Our point should be a practical one: that the law needs to be adequate to protect people's basic needs, and recognizing the gender of trans people is needed to enable the law to fulfill this function. This reform has a practical need, and this should be recognized separately from any academic philosophical debate.
