This is so important, and I totally agree. Cis people saying "but aren't there valid concerns" are almost always operating out of paradigm of "ok we will humor you trans people as far as we can, but come on, you don't really think we should [blank]". It comes across as like "ok then, trans person. We'll play along with your little pretend game, because that's nice to do."
Rather than understanding that our bodies are the falsehood and wrestling with the horror that implies.
repairing gynecomastia by surgical means doesn't bother them and blockers for precocious puberty doesn't bother them and 'cosmetic' surgery for cis people doesn't bother them
You've addressed the nuance and straightforwardness, the simplicity and complexity of the accommodation to affirmation paradigms. Basically, you're at the heart of the discussion: Trans and non-binary people are who they say they are.
You are so gently offering to accompany those who are at the accommodation place to guide them further on in the journey.
Thank you so much for this. I recognized myself in the accommodating category and felt shame, as I aspire to be an all-in ally (as a mother of an adult transgender child) and graduate to a place of wholehearted affirmation. This was beautifully written and so helpful. Thank you 🙏🏻
I've realized that rational debate isn't in itself the core to make change on a societal level. God did not have Moses debate Pharaoh on if he should release the slaves. God had Moses demand the release of His people. On an interpersonal level, rational debate is good if the persons are willing to listen and consider the other's viewpoint, to let themselves be open to it. But people who close themselves off are unreachable by rational logic. Emotions are powerful, especially fear and trauma.
I'm in tension of what to do in the wake of this realization. I've heard of the violence and bloodshed of past liberation movements, and I don't want to do anything that is not loving, even to the people who are of bigotry. However, it seems that in general kindness, patience and empathy doesn't crack them out of their evil. Perhaps only God can/will do that. Perhaps I should not engage with those specific people. I don't know.
I've been watching some of ContraPoint's videos on JK Rowling.
I think I basically subscribe to the trans accommodation view in the sense that I think the state should be neutral with respect to what the correct ontology of gender is and what that implies about the deontic rights of people of gender identities. I think the correct term for this isn't transphobia - I think that transphobia carries the weight of arguing that a certain set of views is beyond the pale and shouldn't be treated as legitimate in liberal societies, in the same way, that claims that some views are islamophobic implies. I'm also personally very open to the possibility that the correct ontology of gender is the trans-affirming view, but I don't think that this is the sort of thing that states should take views on.
I also don't view gender accommodations as deriving from rights intrinsic to gender, I support them insofar as they contribute to the general welfare. For instance, I don't think that women have the right, per se, to compete in a separate category in sporting competitions in the same way that I don't think that people who lack physical strength and stamina have a right to separate sporting competitions. I think the justification for having separate competitions for women is that it would lead to bad consequences if half the population ex ante had no chance of sporting success at high levels. In this light, I think the benefits to trans people should be weighed against the harms that follow from people born as physically female with no sex disorders have a lower chance of competing in high level sport. I think the same criteria should apply to considering whether intersex people should be allowed to compete in elite women's sport.
I think when viewed in this utilitarian light, I don't really think it matters whether trans women are women in some mind-independent ontological sense (which I somewhat doubt exists anyway), and I think the affirming-accommodating distinction doesn't apply.
Analogously, I don't think that race as it is understood in anglophone societies exists in a society independent sense, but I think that this has nothing to do with race should be approached politically. The question of whether someone can wear dreads to work has nothing to do with wheahter they're "really black" - there is just a dimension along with some people in society are discriminated against which causes great harm and I think it's appropriate to for the state to respond with proactive protections for that group.
First let me say that I am glad you find the distinction meaningful. Certainly I operate out of the trans affirming paradigm but I want to point out that the questions "Which paradigm is most accurate (closest to Reality)?", "Which paradigm do I find most compelling?", and "Which paradigm should guide government policy?" are three distinct questions.
Of course, questions of basic human rights and of what specific rights are necessarily entailed in them can be complex. I would suggest, however, that a simple if-then resolves much of your commentary on women's sport. If women have a right to sex-segregated sport, then trans women (because we are women) have a right to participate in women's sport. If, on the other hand, you think that people who lack certain physical advantages —advantages which vary wildly by sport—have a right to participate in separate leagues, then simple biology would demand that sex segregated sport ought to end altogether and that each sport ought to develop biologically tiered categories and sort athletes based on those categories somewhat like they do in boxing or wrestling, only with more detail than weight.
I really appreciate the distinction you’re making, here, and I say this as someone with reservations about the trans affirming paradigm. It’s useful to see these two perspectives and their differences outlined so clearly.
I am strongly in favour of trans accommodations (including transition care for prisoners). I am, however, not convinced by the idea that (all) people have some gender that they “really are” that is separate from their sex. I think “cisnormativity” is good in the sense that we should treat being cisgender as the normal default; for example, I support a “here is your gender unless you want to change it” attitude to raising children.
One of my biggest concerns is the way that the “trans affirming” paradigm wants to force a certain kind of self-understanding on everyone, cis or trans. A trans person who has strong feelings about how their maleness, or femaleness, is defined by the way they are seen, or by their post-op body, will be forced to instead think of their gender as belonging to some ineffable essence. A cis person who feels that their gender is defined by their body will be told that they are not allowed to see themselves this way. I’m not okay with ideologically forcing such a personal perspective on everyone like this. I think we’re better off in a society that allows for disagreement and differences in how we see ourselves.
In any case, I appreciate what you have written here.
Thank you, I am glad you found it helpful and the distinction meaningful. I couldn't quite tell from your comment whether you wanted to have a conversation about trans-ness and questions like "essence" and the role that body morphology should or should not play in our understanding of who we are. If that is a conversation you would like to have then I am here for it. If not then no worries and thank you for reading and commenting!
Thanks for the reply! If you have specific things that come to mind in response to my comment, and you want to go into it, then I am certainly interested in your thoughts. But I’m also happy to let different views be different views, if that seems wiser from your perspective.
This is so important, and I totally agree. Cis people saying "but aren't there valid concerns" are almost always operating out of paradigm of "ok we will humor you trans people as far as we can, but come on, you don't really think we should [blank]". It comes across as like "ok then, trans person. We'll play along with your little pretend game, because that's nice to do."
Rather than understanding that our bodies are the falsehood and wrestling with the horror that implies.
repairing gynecomastia by surgical means doesn't bother them and blockers for precocious puberty doesn't bother them and 'cosmetic' surgery for cis people doesn't bother them
Trans individuals are not political pawns, their rights are not “planks” to “concede” for the sake of expediency.
To concede trans rights is to concede human rights.
To concede human rights is to bow to fascism.
To do so is abhorrent, unconscionable, and unacceptable.
Excellent work, as always, Billie.
This is such a great piece, Billie!
You've addressed the nuance and straightforwardness, the simplicity and complexity of the accommodation to affirmation paradigms. Basically, you're at the heart of the discussion: Trans and non-binary people are who they say they are.
You are so gently offering to accompany those who are at the accommodation place to guide them further on in the journey.
I am grateful for that generosity.
Oh thank you so much!
Thank you so much for this. I recognized myself in the accommodating category and felt shame, as I aspire to be an all-in ally (as a mother of an adult transgender child) and graduate to a place of wholehearted affirmation. This was beautifully written and so helpful. Thank you 🙏🏻
I've realized that rational debate isn't in itself the core to make change on a societal level. God did not have Moses debate Pharaoh on if he should release the slaves. God had Moses demand the release of His people. On an interpersonal level, rational debate is good if the persons are willing to listen and consider the other's viewpoint, to let themselves be open to it. But people who close themselves off are unreachable by rational logic. Emotions are powerful, especially fear and trauma.
I'm in tension of what to do in the wake of this realization. I've heard of the violence and bloodshed of past liberation movements, and I don't want to do anything that is not loving, even to the people who are of bigotry. However, it seems that in general kindness, patience and empathy doesn't crack them out of their evil. Perhaps only God can/will do that. Perhaps I should not engage with those specific people. I don't know.
I've been watching some of ContraPoint's videos on JK Rowling.
I think I basically subscribe to the trans accommodation view in the sense that I think the state should be neutral with respect to what the correct ontology of gender is and what that implies about the deontic rights of people of gender identities. I think the correct term for this isn't transphobia - I think that transphobia carries the weight of arguing that a certain set of views is beyond the pale and shouldn't be treated as legitimate in liberal societies, in the same way, that claims that some views are islamophobic implies. I'm also personally very open to the possibility that the correct ontology of gender is the trans-affirming view, but I don't think that this is the sort of thing that states should take views on.
I also don't view gender accommodations as deriving from rights intrinsic to gender, I support them insofar as they contribute to the general welfare. For instance, I don't think that women have the right, per se, to compete in a separate category in sporting competitions in the same way that I don't think that people who lack physical strength and stamina have a right to separate sporting competitions. I think the justification for having separate competitions for women is that it would lead to bad consequences if half the population ex ante had no chance of sporting success at high levels. In this light, I think the benefits to trans people should be weighed against the harms that follow from people born as physically female with no sex disorders have a lower chance of competing in high level sport. I think the same criteria should apply to considering whether intersex people should be allowed to compete in elite women's sport.
I think when viewed in this utilitarian light, I don't really think it matters whether trans women are women in some mind-independent ontological sense (which I somewhat doubt exists anyway), and I think the affirming-accommodating distinction doesn't apply.
Analogously, I don't think that race as it is understood in anglophone societies exists in a society independent sense, but I think that this has nothing to do with race should be approached politically. The question of whether someone can wear dreads to work has nothing to do with wheahter they're "really black" - there is just a dimension along with some people in society are discriminated against which causes great harm and I think it's appropriate to for the state to respond with proactive protections for that group.
First let me say that I am glad you find the distinction meaningful. Certainly I operate out of the trans affirming paradigm but I want to point out that the questions "Which paradigm is most accurate (closest to Reality)?", "Which paradigm do I find most compelling?", and "Which paradigm should guide government policy?" are three distinct questions.
Of course, questions of basic human rights and of what specific rights are necessarily entailed in them can be complex. I would suggest, however, that a simple if-then resolves much of your commentary on women's sport. If women have a right to sex-segregated sport, then trans women (because we are women) have a right to participate in women's sport. If, on the other hand, you think that people who lack certain physical advantages —advantages which vary wildly by sport—have a right to participate in separate leagues, then simple biology would demand that sex segregated sport ought to end altogether and that each sport ought to develop biologically tiered categories and sort athletes based on those categories somewhat like they do in boxing or wrestling, only with more detail than weight.
I really appreciate the distinction you’re making, here, and I say this as someone with reservations about the trans affirming paradigm. It’s useful to see these two perspectives and their differences outlined so clearly.
I am strongly in favour of trans accommodations (including transition care for prisoners). I am, however, not convinced by the idea that (all) people have some gender that they “really are” that is separate from their sex. I think “cisnormativity” is good in the sense that we should treat being cisgender as the normal default; for example, I support a “here is your gender unless you want to change it” attitude to raising children.
One of my biggest concerns is the way that the “trans affirming” paradigm wants to force a certain kind of self-understanding on everyone, cis or trans. A trans person who has strong feelings about how their maleness, or femaleness, is defined by the way they are seen, or by their post-op body, will be forced to instead think of their gender as belonging to some ineffable essence. A cis person who feels that their gender is defined by their body will be told that they are not allowed to see themselves this way. I’m not okay with ideologically forcing such a personal perspective on everyone like this. I think we’re better off in a society that allows for disagreement and differences in how we see ourselves.
In any case, I appreciate what you have written here.
Thank you, I am glad you found it helpful and the distinction meaningful. I couldn't quite tell from your comment whether you wanted to have a conversation about trans-ness and questions like "essence" and the role that body morphology should or should not play in our understanding of who we are. If that is a conversation you would like to have then I am here for it. If not then no worries and thank you for reading and commenting!
Thanks for the reply! If you have specific things that come to mind in response to my comment, and you want to go into it, then I am certainly interested in your thoughts. But I’m also happy to let different views be different views, if that seems wiser from your perspective.