There are many aspects of transgender activism that can, and should, be criticized. However, reasonable criticism doesn’t justify unreasonable hate. Given the tense, often angry, discourse surrounding trans issues, it’s important to keep this distinction in mind.
Earlier this month, two Daily Wire pundits, Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles, ignited a bipartisan firestorm in the United States when they made comments towards the trans community that were undeniably venomous and cruel.
Walsh posted a video attacking prominent transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who he called “unearthly and eerie” as well as “pitiable and bizarre.” The video was rightfully criticized by both liberals and conservatives who felt that Walsh was engaging in mean-spirited bullying.
Responding to critics, Walsh proudly admitted to being “aggressive and harsh and angry” and said that his goal was not to persuade others, but to “defeat, humiliate, and demoralize” opponents.
Shortly afterwards, Knowles gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference where he said that “transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.” His rhetoric was disturbing and extreme.
His rhetoric was disturbing and extreme
Many liberal media outlets misreported Knowles’ comments as calling for the eradication of transgender people, but, after Knowles threatened libel, they clarified that he had only called for the elimination of “transgenderism” as an ideology. That distinction is hardly an improvement.
To “eliminate transgenderism” would mean forcing all transgender people to live according to their original sex. Not only is this illiberal and authoritarian, it’s obviously inhumane. There’s ample research showing that transgender people who aren’t permitted to transition are prone to suicidal ideation and depression.
Between Walsh and Knowles’ comments, some conservatives wondered: was the Daily Wire going too far?
For Christina Buttons, an investigative journalist who often criticizes pediatric transgender medicine, the answer was yes. Six months ago, the Daily Wire hired Buttons with an understanding that, though pediatric gender clinics are deeply flawed, transgender adults should generally be allowed to live as they please.
Some conservatives wondered: was the Daily Wire going too far?
Buttons felt that this agreement had been violated. Concerned by the rhetoric of her colleagues, she tendered her resignation and wrote a public letter calling for more moderate, nuanced criticism of trans issues.
“There is a critical distinction between speaking truth and being tactless, between sticking to the facts and sticking it to the libs,” she wrote, adding that as a journalist, she spends countless hours surveying data and “scouring primary literature,” but that her colleagues’ inflammatory remarks were rendering her “painstaking attention to detail” meaningless.
Compared with Walsh and Knowles’ extremism, Buttons’ approach was a breath of fresh air. For gender critical voices, there is a moral and strategic duty to be fair and empathetic.
The core idea of trans activism is admirable — trans people should be provided reasonable accommodations that allow them to flourish like everyone else.
These accommodations can clash with other rights and interests, particularly those of biological women and LGB people. That creates moral quagmires and difficult conversations about tradeoffs, which need to be navigated cautiously so as to ensure no one is unduly harmed.
It’s true that militant trans activists can be deaf to the harms experienced by other groups — but many gender critical voices take this as licence to adopt the opposite extreme and simply demonize trans people.
There are important conversations to be had about trans athletes, women’s prisons and pediatric gender medicine, among other things. While the current maximalist approach to trans rights is untenable, pushing back on that does not, in any way, justify blanket hostility towards the trans community.
In many cases, these issues can be resolved in a manner that benefits everyone.
For example, the United Kingdom discovered that youth who self-identified as trans were receiving reckless and harmful medical treatment. The response was not to ban care for such youth, but to improve it.
Bolstered by new financing, the United Kingdom will now explore whether gender dysphoric youth are falsely self-identifying as transgender due to trauma or internalized homophobia. More robust treatment, including holistic mental health support, will be provided to patients regardless if they are authentically transgender or not. Everyone wins.
In many cases, these issues can be resolved in a manner that benefits everyone
In another example, Scotland recently amended its prison laws so that transgender women must first undergo an individualized risk assessment before being transferred to women’s prisons. This protects incarcerated women (and trans women) from predatory men who falsely identify as trans, while maintaining a pathway for some prison transfers where appropriate (which is important given that trans women are often subject to violence in men’s prisons).
These kinds of solutions, which seek reasonable compromise, are harder to achieve when extremists use inflammatory and hateful language. While gender critical voices are quick to condemn extremism within the trans community, it’s equally imperative to condemn voices within their own camp that see trans people as less than human.
Resorting to black-and-white thinking is easy — but we should strive to be better than that and embrace difficult and uncomfortable conversations. Those who seek only to “humiliate and demoralize” the other side are guilty of intellectual and moral laziness.
It’s also strategically important to show that criticisms of trans activism are not inherently hateful. By keeping criticisms fact-based, focused and fair, gender critical voices can build trust and minimize unjustifiable damage to the many legitimate parts of trans rights.
Common sense, tact and empathy are the key — not hate.
National Post
Post a Comment