Two days after he was pulled from a main-stage appearance at this year’s Pride Celebration in San Francisco — and after his song, “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” was canceled as the festival’s unofficial rallying cry — Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider has issued a response.
“I was not aware the Transgender community expects fealty and total agreement with all their beliefs and any variation or deviation is considered ‘transphobic,'” wrote Snider in a Facebook post.
“So, my lifetime of supporting the Transgender community’s right to identify as they want and honoring whatever changes they may make in how they present themselves to the world isn’t enough?” he continued, in a post he titled, “So, I hear I’m transphobic. Really?”
“The transgender community needs moderates who support their choices, even if we don’t agree with every one of their edicts,” Snider continued. “For some Transgender people (not all) to accuse supporters, like me, of transphobia is not a good look for their cause.”
Sigh. The right wing have completely poisoned the well by spreading so much misinformation about gender affirming care and transitioning, acting as if it's easy to come by, and can be done on a...
Sigh. The right wing have completely poisoned the well by spreading so much misinformation about gender affirming care and transitioning, acting as if it's easy to come by, and can be done on a whim by preteens, or forced on them by coercive parents. Believing that stupid shit doesn't make Dee transphobic per se, but suggesting that people who decide to go through with GAC and/or transitioning are following a "sad and dangerous fad" does. It's the same ignorant shit I used to hear about homosexuality and bisexuality being a "choice" and "only a fad" when I was growing up, and it genuinely pisses me off.
Since trans kids are almost exclusively talked about in the hypothetical, I'd just like to share this recent anecdote from The Atlantic, offered from the perspective of the parent of a trans kid....
Exemplary
Since trans kids are almost exclusively talked about in the hypothetical, I'd just like to share this recent anecdote from The Atlantic, offered from the perspective of the parent of a trans kid. (The other anecdotes in the article aren't worth reading -- they're just speculative, devoid of experience).
I'd like to emphasize that this is not my story, but for formatting reasons I'd prefer to paste it under the break rather than put the whole thing in block quotes.
I figured it was just a matter of time before this topic came up, so I have kept my Trans Dad hat ready. I am the father of a 10-year-old transgender son. He has identified as a boy since he was 4 or 5. In many ways, he’s the prototypical example of a gender-incongruent kid. To quote from some in the medical community, he has been “persistent, insistent, and consistent” in this identification. Before he even knew what the word transgender was, he would describe himself in one way or another as having “a boy brain and girl body.” In no time in the past five to six years has this wavered in even the slightest.
I think there is a feeling in some circles that parents of trans kids see their biologically female child play with a truck three times and rush to change pronouns, throw away dresses, and cover all pink paint with blue. For us, this was not even remotely the case. As our son’s identity began to express itself, we were confused, uncertain, and, to be perfectly honest, a little frightened. Our son began refusing anything remotely “girly” about the time he was 4-and-a-half. He began demanding short haircuts, boyish clothes, and mostly boyish toys.
Of course, my wife and I rushed to change his name and pronouns, began wearing We’re proud of our trans boy! T-shirts, secured spots for him on Pride parade floats, and booked his medical-intervention appointments––at least that’s what many people in America seem to think, as if we’re all quick to fast-track our gender-curious kids to trans identities. How do people who believe such things operate in the world being so divorced from reality? We had no idea what to do. Somewhat guiltily, I will admit that we didn’t fully accept (or maybe want to accept) the reality of our son. We weren’t cruel or entirely unsupportive. But we clung to the idea that it was merely a phase. That he was just playing with roles.
In pre-K, he was starting to ask for male pronouns. We nodded and brushed it off. In parent-teacher conferences during the autumn of kindergarten, his teachers again told us this, as well as about him asking to use the boys’ restroom. We replied that we were fine with that in school if that’s what he preferred but we still used she/her at home and planned to continue doing so. “We just want to see where it goes,” we said.
At the request for short haircuts, we avoided “boy” cuts, trying first a bob, and then a shorter bob. Our son would come home from those appointments sullen and sometimes angry, because he had been pretty clear on his desire (a short, boy-style cut) and we had opted for a short, girl-style cut. We were hoping it might be enough, and frankly hoping he would get over it and everything would go back to “normal.” We did roughly the same thing with clothes. He’d want to shop in the boys’ section at Target; we would keep trying to steer him to the girls’. Books too; we were always sneaking in empowered-girl books, thinking maybe he just had developed some weird, bad impressions of women and girls. He would dutifully put them on his shelf and never take them out.
We persisted in using female pronouns at home and referring to him as our daughter and our other son’s sister … even when he was referring to himself as a brother. In short, we did loads of non-gender-affirming things. If you would have asked us then if we thought it was a phase and that he’d “change back,” we would have dutifully done what liberals in a progressive city do: assured you that wasn’t true and that we loved and supported our child. And we would have been lying; while we of course loved and supported our child, we hoped this whole “I’m a boy in a girl’s body” thing would fade away.
We feared telling our families and potentially facing their rejection and judgment, their possible assumptions that our time in “liberal Madison” had something to do with our child being transgender. We feared we would cause harm by labeling our child too soon. We let our fears hinder us from being the parents our child needed. We were wrong.
I share this to underscore how complex this process is. Because there does seem to be the idea that parents of trans kids aren’t making an effort to “make” their kid conform their gender to their biological sex, that we are just rushing headlong into embracing our child’s trans identity. That there aren’t transgender kids, just over-indulgent progressive parents using their child as a political totem. Or, from the other political extreme, that if we have any doubts or fears or missteps, that we are anti-trans bigots pushing our children toward certain suicide. None of those ideas are true. That this is a deeply difficult thing to process doesn’t seem to occur to some people.
My wife and I finally came to terms with our son's gender identity three years ago when he was seven-and-a-half. Our son was getting increasingly sullen, angry, and defiant. He was unhappy in general, but also angry with us. Even through that winter, we still danced around his gender identity as the cause, as we didn’t want to accept that it was true. We still wanted to believe we had a daughter, not another son. To let go of that idea felt like the equivalent of losing a child. But by that spring it was simply impossible to ignore. We had a conversation and made an appointment with his pediatrician, telling her all we had seen and heard. She confirmed what we had tried to avoid accepting: Our son exhibited all the signs of being transgender.
That was the day we changed our perspective. We went home and told him we were going to start using his preferred pronouns. We compromised on a nickname. He had been named after my wife’s grandmother, and we explained that it was important to carry that on in some capacity, and he accepted a shortened, gender-neutral (and pretty coolly unique) name to go by that used his birth name as a jumping off point. His brother struggled a little with the change, but quickly adapted. And what happened? The sullenness, defiance, and anger disappeared. Our beautiful, buoyant, zany child sprang back out, bigger and better than ever. He switched from Girl to Boy Scouts and thrived.
In the three years since, he has given us not even a tiny glimpse of any of this not being utterly and totally true. He has thrived at his public school—kids are incredibly accepting of things when allowed to be—and at home. His extended family has embraced his identity (some more easily than others). He is as great a kid as anyone could ask for.
I know that there will be people who, were they to read this, would say or think Yeah, sure … he’s only that way because you indulged it and his teachers and school indoctrinated him. To which I’d reply, it could possibly look that way from the outside, if all the evidence you have is one dad’s personal account. But what the people who say those sorts of things don’t see is the daily, lived experience of my kid. A lived experience that reaffirms constantly the truth of who he is. My son is a boy with a girl’s body. I don't understand how that happened, I don’t know how that works, but I know it’s true.
This acceptance doesn’t make the coming years any easier or less terrifying. We can see puberty on the horizon, getting closer every day. We know the huge, terrifying decisions that are coming. We are terrified of making the wrong decision, of doing something that might irreversibly alter or hurt our child. We know that the science, while not as in doubt as opponents want people to believe, has areas of uncertainty. But we need the ability to make the best choices for our kid based on the best medical understanding that exists. And to have the ability to do that suddenly cast into doubt, alongside the possibility of being accused of abuse on top of things, is terrifying and infuriating.
The idea of medical intervention is frightening. But it’s not simply thrown around, at least not in our case. We’ve already had a preliminary meeting with a pediatrician specializing in gender care. Did we leave with a bag of puberty blockers and testosterone vials? Of course not. There is a process we will have to go through to get our insurance company to even cover puberty blockers. As for hormones, that can’t happen until he’s at least 15. And it’s important to remember something else: None of these interventions are required. Many trans kids and adults opt for a range of options, from no medical interventions at all to a full package of interventions. Some start, then stop. It’s all a choice, one parents and kids and doctors need to have the freedom to make.
You may have noticed that earlier I referred to my son as gender incongruent rather than gender dysphoric. That’s not just me being cute with language. I didn’t refer to him as dysphoric, because he isn’t. He’s a super-happy, well-adjusted kid. Why? Because of the support he receives from his family, his friends, and others in his life. There is no dissonance for him because he’s allowed to be who he is. But dysphoria is always lurking out there, whether in the creeping specter of puberty or just the often-unaccepting outside world, and with it the potential for crippling anxiety, depression, and even suicide.
Are there risks to medical interventions? Of course. But the health risks of dysphoria are real too. Given that, it’s still in our best interests as parents to trust the opinions of major medical organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the various doctors and therapists our child has seen. We don’t have the luxury of latching on to individual critical voices. The stakes for us are just too high. That doesn’t mean research shouldn’t continue and that critical voices shouldn’t provide a dose of healthy skepticism; that is a critical part of the scientific process. But until it becomes clear that the consensus on gender-affirming care has changed, we will trust the current consensus.
A lot of people struggle with accepting that being transgender is real. It’s counterintuitive. I really do get that. As I said, I don’t understand why my son is who he is. But it’s true. Be skeptical and ask questions. But also know that this is not a fantasy. It is not something made up. Not a phase. It’s real, and the kids and adults experiencing it are real too. They are not making it up. They are not deluded. They are not freaks.
That is a great read. Let me add my own experience. When I was 17, in 1991, I finally came out to my mother. Let me paint you a brief picture. My mother adopted me, at the age of 7 days old, when...
Exemplary
That is a great read. Let me add my own experience.
When I was 17, in 1991, I finally came out to my mother. Let me paint you a brief picture. My mother adopted me, at the age of 7 days old, when she was 45. She was told she'd never have kids (and indeed, I was her only.) To say that there was no public discussion about trans issues is like saying Pluto is a little bit far away. There were no role models, no pride celebrations, no media projects. To be trans in 1991 was like being gay in 1891. no one talked about it and fewer people understood it, at least outside of the community itself (which was encouraged to be quiet, as is so often the case with marginalized people.)
I don't mention all of that out of a pity-party mentality. I want people who have never experienced the disconnect of being trans to understand one important truth: most often, people who are trans know they are before they ever hear about it. Trans awareness is not "hey, have you ever thought about this?", it's "hey, you are not alone."
Anyway. So, here I am, a 17 year old "boy" with a mother who was born at the birth of the Great Depression and whose teen years were born during the second world war. To say that she didn't understand what I was going through is, again, a vast understatement. But she was accepting. She was supportive. And above all, she tried to help me adjust.
Ultimately, medical assistance and society were not forthcoming in those years, and ever since I have settled into non-transitionary trans life. I often wonder about what might have been. I know who I am (a woman, in a masculine fleshcage), but it's been years since I've had anxiety about it. Publicly, I'm so closeted I have brunches with Aslan, but privately (and online, especially with friends), I am who I am.
I mention ALL of this because, as I said, in the days where I discovered myself this wasn't largely talked about, wasn't entertained, wasn't done. So, if being trans is all about fads and indoctrination where the hell did I, a kid born in the 70s with a mother who grew into adulthood in the 50s, even get the idea?
Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sorry that more support wasn't available for you when you were young. You make an excellent point that many trans children express who they are before...
Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sorry that more support wasn't available for you when you were young. You make an excellent point that many trans children express who they are before they know that there are other people like them or know the words to describe who they are. This notion that being trans is a fad is, in my opinion, ultimately just a way for bigots to scare parents. It's manipulation, pure and simple.
Publicly, I'm so closeted I have brunches with Aslan
The distinction between action and subject is interesting. Someone can do something which is transphobic, and/or they can be transphobic. It's an important distinction because the emotional...
The distinction between action and subject is interesting. Someone can do something which is transphobic, and/or they can be transphobic. It's an important distinction because the emotional effect, and the implications, of those two messages are quite different. Further, people may move fluidly between these different judgements without much discussion about that movement, and where one statement can be used to deduce the other.
I think both the festival organisers, and Dee, can be seen as making these movements. Dee's quote moves from talking about his actions, both his ally work and this recent controversy, and then moves to ask if he himself is transphobic. The festival organisers, who perhaps invited Dee to perform because of his allyship, have seen this incident, and decided that this transphobic incident justifies revoking their invitation. This can be interpreted as them holding Dee accountable for this incident, but also feel to me like a value judgement of Dee and his positions in general, more akin to deplatforming. That might be a purely emotional resonance based on the similarities of two tactics with different aims, though.
In terms of the blowback, I think this is an example where messaging is so important. I don't know anything about Dee's work and allyship, but even the best allies will sometimes make mistakes. If you say to someone you have a problem with something they did and you want them to make amends, they can do that and take accountability for that action. If you jump straight to it being an issue about their character though, they will get defensive and also are not sure of targeted action they can do to correct that issue.
I don't know what comms were like between Dee and the organisers. One point of interest is that the SF Pride press release was not linked from the news article, but Dee's official statement was! I found the SF Pride press release and it doesn't provide much more information other than saying it was a mutual agreement to part ways. So perhaps there has been an attempt at constructive dialogue here.
I think the same fluidity around judgements about actions vs judgements about people are also present in our criminal justice system and state rhetoric/propaganda around public safety, policing, crime, terrorism, etc. Some people commit crimes, and they might go to jail. But rarely are these people portrayed as 'people who committed a crime', rather they are portrayed as 'criminals', which has the effect of moving the notion of criminality onto them as people, rather than as a function of actions they took in a specific set of circumstances. Once the rhetorical device has implied a binary in the minds of the public (criminal vs good citizens) then the state uses the binary to Other one of the groups and construct a narrative about protecting 'us' from 'them'.
Perhaps further investigation of this fluidity could be an opportunity for developing new leftist optics and rhetoric. In the case of the 'trans debate', we can make it clear that we are not trying to attack people for their views, we're trying to hold them accountable for their actions. In the case of transformative justice, we can make it clear that people who have committed crimes are still people, that the 'class' of 'criminals' is not useful for creating a fair and effective justice system, is actively harmful, etc.
Not sure how to really conclude from there. Sorry for kinda a ramble post! ❤
I've heard this a few times, but every time, people think the "leftist orthodoxy" is something different. Is it that trans people are "born that way", or that people can change gender at will? Is...
It is virtually impossible for one to dissent from the orthodoxy in online leftist spaces
I've heard this a few times, but every time, people think the "leftist orthodoxy" is something different. Is it that trans people are "born that way", or that people can change gender at will? Is it that nationalization and density will solve all our problems or that degrowth is the answer to climate change? Hell, leftists can't even agree on whether or not the concept of government is good.
It's hard for me to take a "party line" argument seriously when you can ask three leftists a question and get five opinions.
The problem isn't about what exactly that orthodoxy happens to be; it's about the inability to discuss deviations from that in a reasonable manner. Of course, not everything is up for debate, and...
The problem isn't about what exactly that orthodoxy happens to be; it's about the inability to discuss deviations from that in a reasonable manner. Of course, not everything is up for debate, and there are limits to what counts as civil debate, even if you don't raise your voice and don't engage in disruptive tactics, just by the nature of the (local) overton window. But to me it seems that window can be extremely narrow.
To reiterate: Sometimes rightfully so. No minority should have to "rationally" tolerate someone else's "rational" argument why that particular minority is subhuman.
But the fact that your three leftists can tear each other to little gory bits over relatively inconsequential disagreements is worrying. Like, does it matter if I believe that trans people can change their gender at will, as long as I respect their rights? Yet I have very little hope that that stance will be tolerated, even in relatively mainstream leftist spaces. Predominantly online, tbf. I consider humans to be much more pleasant and patient in meat space.
I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts on this. Do you have a need to enter leftist spaces where Trans people will be talking about their experiences and insert your opinions about the validity...
Like, does it matter if I believe that trans people can change their gender at will, as long as I respect their rights? Yet I have very little hope that that stance will be tolerated, even in relatively mainstream leftist spaces.
I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts on this.
Do you have a need to enter leftist spaces where Trans people will be talking about their experiences and insert your opinions about the validity of who they are? Why does your desire to argue dispassionately about this trump their need to exist in a space where their existence isn't constantly questioned?
I'm not arguing here that questions of gender shouldn't be discussed in academic settings, or in publications or forums devoted to those discussions and questions. But I also don't see why any online space should be obligated to accommodate argumentation or discussion that calls into question the validity of someone's personal identity even if you support their legal rights.
I hope you understand that I'm not attacking you here, but I also think it might be worth considering why you consider it more important that you be able to express your opinion than it is for someone else be allowed to have a space where they're not obligated to engage with it.
Same. I'm entirely, fully in agreement that there's a reason that arguments that question the validity of trans identities aren't tolerated in some spaces, particularly lgbt, particularly trans...
I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts on this.
Same.
I'm entirely, fully in agreement that there's a reason that arguments that question the validity of trans identities aren't tolerated in some spaces, particularly lgbt, particularly trans spaces. Let me clarify a few things:
Do you have a need to enter leftist spaces where Trans people will be talking about their experiences and insert your opinions about the validity of who they are?
No.
Why does your desire to argue dispassionately about this trump their need to exist in a space where their existence isn't constantly questioned?
It does not.
Perhaps I should also clarify that I picked that example because I assumed from mtset's post that it was a matter of legitimate heterodoxy in the lgbt community, whether trans identities can be subject to change or not. (Identity here referring to the "latent variable" that a gender-questioning person might not be fully aware of, instead of the identity they are aware of or project outwards.) I assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that mtset implied that both views on that are valid, and not in conflict with being fully convinced of the validity of and accepting of trans people.
I could have picked de-growth vs nationalization just as easily.
Look, this isn't, as my first post already implied, a matter that is exclusive to trans issues. It isn't even exclusive to minority issues. You can take economic equality or climate justice issues if you like, and the problem will persist: Leftists are (in the right spaces) incredibly intolerant of other leftist ideas.
The problem is worse or better in some or other spaces and in some or other topics. Tildes is quite alright, for example. Twitter is, well, twitter, and thus a cesspool. Economic or climate issues are generally easier than lgbt, race or sexism issues. But it doesn't ever truly go away, in my experience. I've seen tildes discussions escalate beyond belief, that I would attribute at least partly to, well, orthodox thought.
I hope you understand that I'm not attacking you here, but I also think it might be worth considering why you consider it more important that you be able to express your opinion than it is for someone else be allowed to have a space where they're not obligated to engage with it.
I hope that recommendation of yours will change if you account for the above, as I hope it's clear I don't believe I am entitled to that. Let's take the spicy, perhaps ill-fated example I yoinked off mtset's comment: I don't expect to be allowed to debate that in lgbt spaces, (assuming it is as spicy as I inferred) but I also don't see why e.g. a more open-ended question on the same topic shouldn't be tolerated in generic leftist (i.e. non-lgbt-specific) spaces.
I suppose a lot of it possibly comes down to matters of experience. Perhaps I frequent shittier communities, and thus experience forms of the phenomenon that you don't. Perhaps we generally agree on the degree of what should or shouldn't be tolerated, but are talking past one another anyway, because you find yourself in an environment where that belief is undersatisfied, while I find myself in environments where it is oversatisfied?
Edit: Just clarifying in an edit, because I don't want to necro this (part of the) thread with stuff that's become increasingly off topic. I don't disagree with the two comments below. I see A) and B) as a continuum, as both topics, spaces, and the people within exist on a continuum of... sensitivity, is the word I think I'm looking for? But in my experience even under (A), there can be group think related problems. In B), I certainly understand (again, see previous) the need to cordon off certain topics... let me try and phrase it this way: For some controversial and/or orthodoxical(?) topics, I have little confidence that most spaces will accept a discussion of those, even if that discussion comes from an open-minded place, and is phrased with the greatest respect for any minorities affected. And again, I understand where that comes from. Even in a non-LGBT leftist space, leftists will want to keep LGBT people safe in there, so even a hint of a whiff of an idea of transphobia gets the boot immediately. I can't even say I disagree with that sentiment. But that isn't a satisfying solution, imo. I'm not saying we should open the flood gates. I'm not even saying the solution sits in between the extremes. Maybe the solution sits along another axis entirely. In short: I understand why it happens, but it still worries me. I don't have a satisfactory solution.
On the topic of this discussion occurring in ~lgbt, I was well aware of that. I had hoped to open/contribute to a side branch of this discussion that is more about the wider problem of orthodoxy/heterodoxy beyond just trans spaces, that discussion just happening in ~lgbt without any further relation to it. Didn't work. I'm sorry for my part in contributing to a less pleasant atmosphere here. Be assured that is the last thing I wanted. I've re-read my posts here and identified a few things I would've done differently, mostly around more clearly scoping my argument so as to not be misunderstood.
I think the reason you're getting the pushback you're getting is because A) "talking about general leftist issues in general leftist spaces" is a bit different than B) "talking about trans issues...
I could have picked de-growth vs nationalization just as easily.
Look, this isn't, as my first post already implied, a matter that is exclusive to trans issues. It isn't even exclusive to minority issues. You can take economic equality or climate justice issues if you like, and the problem will persist: Leftists are (in the right spaces) incredibly intolerant of other leftist ideas.
I also don't see why e.g. a more open-ended question on the same topic shouldn't be tolerated in generic leftist (i.e. non-lgbt-specific) spaces.
I think the reason you're getting the pushback you're getting is because A) "talking about general leftist issues in general leftist spaces" is a bit different than B) "talking about trans issues in non-lgbt-specific spaces":
For A), the more general topics (climate change, economic inequality, etc.) are broader issues that affect larger groups of people, and so (in theory) discussions should incorporate perspectives from all kinds of people! So, if there's intolerance to various new/outsider ideas, then you're absolutely right that there's probably a problem there.
However, for B), trans topics disproportionately affect... well... trans people!
This means that, in LGBT spaces, the people involved in the discussion are often the very people whose lives are at stake.
But, to try to discuss trans issues in "non-lgbt-specific spaces" is to necessarily invite perspectives from people without lived trans experiences, whose lives are not at stake. As a result, the quality of the discourse tends to be... less refined? The ideas being discussed can often come from a place of ignorance or lack of experience (see this quote from elsewhere in this thread). Because of this, there tends to be less tolerance towards these less-refined "outside ideas", as the trans people involved in the discussion have often... heard these ideas before? Have moved past them? Have developed their understanding of gender in more nuanced ways?
I think for those reasons, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison to imply that the trans issues in this topic are part of an overall "orthodoxy" problem in leftist spaces; there are dynamics at play here that are unique to trans issues in particular.
Thanks, you did a much better job articulating this than I would have. And it's also worth noting that we are having this discussion in ~lgbt. One problem that I have had in the past with Tildes...
Thanks, you did a much better job articulating this than I would have. And it's also worth noting that we are having this discussion in ~lgbt.
One problem that I have had in the past with Tildes directly in relation to this is that Tildes doesn't make it really obvious what group a topic was posted in if you come to if from the front page. It's there, but it's in small text and it's easy to miss it if you don't specifically look for it. And one might approach a discussion differently if you're coming to it in ~humanities or ~science vs ~lgbt. Not that I think it's great to make certain arguments in any of those places, but it's a lot less chill in a space like ~lgbt, I would think.
ETA: Read @dubteedub's reply. I think reading the comment charitably they mean orthodoxy in the sense of "generally accepted or authorized belief". The word is typically used referring to...
I think reading the comment charitably they mean orthodoxy in the sense of "generally accepted or authorized belief". The word is typically used referring to religious organizations, but I've absolutely seen it used when referring to other non-religious groups and organizations. From the rest of the comment though, I'm guessing that the comparison to religious orthodoxy and heresy is probably intentional.
There's this common assertion that leftist spaces require monolithic thinking and punish anyone who steps outside the boundaries of acceptable thought. And there are certainly examples of that happening, but I think it gets heavily exaggerated, either by people who just don't have experience talking with real people or by folks who want to paint the left as being against freedom of expression and thought. I've asked an awful lot of stupid questions and said some pretty ignorant things in leftist spaces and have rarely encountered anything but patience.
I do think, though, that particularly in online spaces there's a lot of vigilance (maybe even hyper-vigilance) toward bad faith argument/questions. I think that this comes from a genuine place - from my experience leftist spaces online are frequent targets of bad faith engagement through JAQing (just asking questions), sealioning, devil's advocates, and just general trolling. It can require some effort to make sure that you are sincere in your discussions and questions, but that has never bothered me because I've seen how frustrating it can be to deal with trolls who are "just asking questions" or even well-intentioned internet "intellectuals" who want to devil's advocate someone's identity or existence.
Damn. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I apologize for being pedantic about something like this in ~lgbt. I wasn't aware of the prevalence of that phrase as an anti-trans...
Damn. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I apologize for being pedantic about something like this in ~lgbt. I wasn't aware of the prevalence of that phrase as an anti-trans dogwhistle. That sucks, and I'm genuinely sorry for trying to explain shit to you like I know what I'm talking about.
This seems like a nonsensical point to me. A group of people using a word or phrase, especially in line with it's definition, doesn't transfer ownership to said group. Nor should you want to cede...
This seems like a nonsensical point to me.
A group of people using a word or phrase, especially in line with it's definition, doesn't transfer ownership to said group. Nor should you want to cede it to them. It's reasonable to take issue with the claims of orthodoxy, it's not reasonable to associate anyone who uses a term (again, in line with it's definition) as a member of or indirectly supporting said group.
I have no doubts there are attacks made in bad faith, but in my opinion that's no reason to throw out the English language when someone is engaging with you in presumably good faith.
I have no doubts there are attacks made in bad faith, but in my opinion that's no reason to throw out the English language when someone is engaging with you in presumably good faith.
I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. This is the exact quote: That's not calling out 'trans orthodoxy' in particular, it's claiming there is a general orthodoxy that exists in leftist spaces...
I think you're jumping the gun a bit here.
This is the exact quote:
from the orthodoxy in online leftist spaces
That's not calling out 'trans orthodoxy' in particular, it's claiming there is a general orthodoxy that exists in leftist spaces and applying that to this conversation. This notion of 'leftist orthodoxy' predates the current 'culture war' and while it's obviously something that probably originated in conservative spaces I think it tracks outside of that because their are some elements of truth to that. I mean, right here in this thread we are policing someone for using a word that other people have used, rather than addressing their point.
There used to be a 2-page disjointed ramble in this edit box. I'll try to shorten that. I like this distinction of "problematic person" vs "problematic action". I think it's a vital part of the...
There used to be a 2-page disjointed ramble in this edit box. I'll try to shorten that.
I like this distinction of "problematic person" vs "problematic action". I think it's a vital part of the nuance we lost around controversial topics. Or maybe that nuance never existed to begin with. Even worse online.
Another thing that might be missing is that we don't consider degrees of separation when judging transgressions. Guilty by association is not a per se flawed concept, but it's important to remember that the associated guilt is weaker than the original one. I guess in that context, we should judge Dee Snider less on what he replied to, and more on what he replied.
I also think there's a place for judging someone by the bad and the good they do. While good deeds maybe don't make up for intentionally malicious harm someone caused, personally I believe that good deeds do make up for unintentionally causing harm, even if that harm itself is never properly addressed. At what exchange ratio? I don't know, but it isn't zero in my book. Though of course you probably want to maintain high standards for a sort of figurehead of a movement.
I was not aware the Transgender community expects fealty and total agreement with all their beliefs and any variation or deviation is considered ‘transphobic,'
I have to say, I agree with this statement, though I'd like to be clear that the trans community is not special in this. I'd hazard the guess any amount of controversy leads to this kind of "immune response" from the community. This pattern permeates leftist communities and probably all political and many other non-political communities. Sometimes it's necessary to a degree, paradox of tolerance and all that, but I do feel it tends to get in the way an awful lot.
Sigh. The right wing have completely poisoned the well by spreading so much misinformation about gender affirming care and transitioning, acting as if it's easy to come by, and can be done on a whim by preteens, or forced on them by coercive parents. Believing that stupid shit doesn't make Dee transphobic per se, but suggesting that people who decide to go through with GAC and/or transitioning are following a "sad and dangerous fad" does. It's the same ignorant shit I used to hear about homosexuality and bisexuality being a "choice" and "only a fad" when I was growing up, and it genuinely pisses me off.
Since trans kids are almost exclusively talked about in the hypothetical, I'd just like to share this recent anecdote from The Atlantic, offered from the perspective of the parent of a trans kid. (The other anecdotes in the article aren't worth reading -- they're just speculative, devoid of experience).
I'd like to emphasize that this is not my story, but for formatting reasons I'd prefer to paste it under the break rather than put the whole thing in block quotes.
What Readers Really Think About Gender
I figured it was just a matter of time before this topic came up, so I have kept my Trans Dad hat ready. I am the father of a 10-year-old transgender son. He has identified as a boy since he was 4 or 5. In many ways, he’s the prototypical example of a gender-incongruent kid. To quote from some in the medical community, he has been “persistent, insistent, and consistent” in this identification. Before he even knew what the word transgender was, he would describe himself in one way or another as having “a boy brain and girl body.” In no time in the past five to six years has this wavered in even the slightest.
I think there is a feeling in some circles that parents of trans kids see their biologically female child play with a truck three times and rush to change pronouns, throw away dresses, and cover all pink paint with blue. For us, this was not even remotely the case. As our son’s identity began to express itself, we were confused, uncertain, and, to be perfectly honest, a little frightened. Our son began refusing anything remotely “girly” about the time he was 4-and-a-half. He began demanding short haircuts, boyish clothes, and mostly boyish toys.
Of course, my wife and I rushed to change his name and pronouns, began wearing We’re proud of our trans boy! T-shirts, secured spots for him on Pride parade floats, and booked his medical-intervention appointments––at least that’s what many people in America seem to think, as if we’re all quick to fast-track our gender-curious kids to trans identities. How do people who believe such things operate in the world being so divorced from reality? We had no idea what to do. Somewhat guiltily, I will admit that we didn’t fully accept (or maybe want to accept) the reality of our son. We weren’t cruel or entirely unsupportive. But we clung to the idea that it was merely a phase. That he was just playing with roles.
In pre-K, he was starting to ask for male pronouns. We nodded and brushed it off. In parent-teacher conferences during the autumn of kindergarten, his teachers again told us this, as well as about him asking to use the boys’ restroom. We replied that we were fine with that in school if that’s what he preferred but we still used she/her at home and planned to continue doing so. “We just want to see where it goes,” we said.
At the request for short haircuts, we avoided “boy” cuts, trying first a bob, and then a shorter bob. Our son would come home from those appointments sullen and sometimes angry, because he had been pretty clear on his desire (a short, boy-style cut) and we had opted for a short, girl-style cut. We were hoping it might be enough, and frankly hoping he would get over it and everything would go back to “normal.” We did roughly the same thing with clothes. He’d want to shop in the boys’ section at Target; we would keep trying to steer him to the girls’. Books too; we were always sneaking in empowered-girl books, thinking maybe he just had developed some weird, bad impressions of women and girls. He would dutifully put them on his shelf and never take them out.
We persisted in using female pronouns at home and referring to him as our daughter and our other son’s sister … even when he was referring to himself as a brother. In short, we did loads of non-gender-affirming things. If you would have asked us then if we thought it was a phase and that he’d “change back,” we would have dutifully done what liberals in a progressive city do: assured you that wasn’t true and that we loved and supported our child. And we would have been lying; while we of course loved and supported our child, we hoped this whole “I’m a boy in a girl’s body” thing would fade away.
We feared telling our families and potentially facing their rejection and judgment, their possible assumptions that our time in “liberal Madison” had something to do with our child being transgender. We feared we would cause harm by labeling our child too soon. We let our fears hinder us from being the parents our child needed. We were wrong.
I share this to underscore how complex this process is. Because there does seem to be the idea that parents of trans kids aren’t making an effort to “make” their kid conform their gender to their biological sex, that we are just rushing headlong into embracing our child’s trans identity. That there aren’t transgender kids, just over-indulgent progressive parents using their child as a political totem. Or, from the other political extreme, that if we have any doubts or fears or missteps, that we are anti-trans bigots pushing our children toward certain suicide. None of those ideas are true. That this is a deeply difficult thing to process doesn’t seem to occur to some people.
My wife and I finally came to terms with our son's gender identity three years ago when he was seven-and-a-half. Our son was getting increasingly sullen, angry, and defiant. He was unhappy in general, but also angry with us. Even through that winter, we still danced around his gender identity as the cause, as we didn’t want to accept that it was true. We still wanted to believe we had a daughter, not another son. To let go of that idea felt like the equivalent of losing a child. But by that spring it was simply impossible to ignore. We had a conversation and made an appointment with his pediatrician, telling her all we had seen and heard. She confirmed what we had tried to avoid accepting: Our son exhibited all the signs of being transgender.
That was the day we changed our perspective. We went home and told him we were going to start using his preferred pronouns. We compromised on a nickname. He had been named after my wife’s grandmother, and we explained that it was important to carry that on in some capacity, and he accepted a shortened, gender-neutral (and pretty coolly unique) name to go by that used his birth name as a jumping off point. His brother struggled a little with the change, but quickly adapted. And what happened? The sullenness, defiance, and anger disappeared. Our beautiful, buoyant, zany child sprang back out, bigger and better than ever. He switched from Girl to Boy Scouts and thrived.
In the three years since, he has given us not even a tiny glimpse of any of this not being utterly and totally true. He has thrived at his public school—kids are incredibly accepting of things when allowed to be—and at home. His extended family has embraced his identity (some more easily than others). He is as great a kid as anyone could ask for.
I know that there will be people who, were they to read this, would say or think Yeah, sure … he’s only that way because you indulged it and his teachers and school indoctrinated him. To which I’d reply, it could possibly look that way from the outside, if all the evidence you have is one dad’s personal account. But what the people who say those sorts of things don’t see is the daily, lived experience of my kid. A lived experience that reaffirms constantly the truth of who he is. My son is a boy with a girl’s body. I don't understand how that happened, I don’t know how that works, but I know it’s true.
This acceptance doesn’t make the coming years any easier or less terrifying. We can see puberty on the horizon, getting closer every day. We know the huge, terrifying decisions that are coming. We are terrified of making the wrong decision, of doing something that might irreversibly alter or hurt our child. We know that the science, while not as in doubt as opponents want people to believe, has areas of uncertainty. But we need the ability to make the best choices for our kid based on the best medical understanding that exists. And to have the ability to do that suddenly cast into doubt, alongside the possibility of being accused of abuse on top of things, is terrifying and infuriating.
The idea of medical intervention is frightening. But it’s not simply thrown around, at least not in our case. We’ve already had a preliminary meeting with a pediatrician specializing in gender care. Did we leave with a bag of puberty blockers and testosterone vials? Of course not. There is a process we will have to go through to get our insurance company to even cover puberty blockers. As for hormones, that can’t happen until he’s at least 15. And it’s important to remember something else: None of these interventions are required. Many trans kids and adults opt for a range of options, from no medical interventions at all to a full package of interventions. Some start, then stop. It’s all a choice, one parents and kids and doctors need to have the freedom to make.
You may have noticed that earlier I referred to my son as gender incongruent rather than gender dysphoric. That’s not just me being cute with language. I didn’t refer to him as dysphoric, because he isn’t. He’s a super-happy, well-adjusted kid. Why? Because of the support he receives from his family, his friends, and others in his life. There is no dissonance for him because he’s allowed to be who he is. But dysphoria is always lurking out there, whether in the creeping specter of puberty or just the often-unaccepting outside world, and with it the potential for crippling anxiety, depression, and even suicide.
Are there risks to medical interventions? Of course. But the health risks of dysphoria are real too. Given that, it’s still in our best interests as parents to trust the opinions of major medical organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the various doctors and therapists our child has seen. We don’t have the luxury of latching on to individual critical voices. The stakes for us are just too high. That doesn’t mean research shouldn’t continue and that critical voices shouldn’t provide a dose of healthy skepticism; that is a critical part of the scientific process. But until it becomes clear that the consensus on gender-affirming care has changed, we will trust the current consensus.
A lot of people struggle with accepting that being transgender is real. It’s counterintuitive. I really do get that. As I said, I don’t understand why my son is who he is. But it’s true. Be skeptical and ask questions. But also know that this is not a fantasy. It is not something made up. Not a phase. It’s real, and the kids and adults experiencing it are real too. They are not making it up. They are not deluded. They are not freaks.
They are human beings. And so are their families.
That is a great read. Let me add my own experience.
When I was 17, in 1991, I finally came out to my mother. Let me paint you a brief picture. My mother adopted me, at the age of 7 days old, when she was 45. She was told she'd never have kids (and indeed, I was her only.) To say that there was no public discussion about trans issues is like saying Pluto is a little bit far away. There were no role models, no pride celebrations, no media projects. To be trans in 1991 was like being gay in 1891. no one talked about it and fewer people understood it, at least outside of the community itself (which was encouraged to be quiet, as is so often the case with marginalized people.)
I don't mention all of that out of a pity-party mentality. I want people who have never experienced the disconnect of being trans to understand one important truth: most often, people who are trans know they are before they ever hear about it. Trans awareness is not "hey, have you ever thought about this?", it's "hey, you are not alone."
Anyway. So, here I am, a 17 year old "boy" with a mother who was born at the birth of the Great Depression and whose teen years were born during the second world war. To say that she didn't understand what I was going through is, again, a vast understatement. But she was accepting. She was supportive. And above all, she tried to help me adjust.
Ultimately, medical assistance and society were not forthcoming in those years, and ever since I have settled into non-transitionary trans life. I often wonder about what might have been. I know who I am (a woman, in a masculine fleshcage), but it's been years since I've had anxiety about it. Publicly, I'm so closeted I have brunches with Aslan, but privately (and online, especially with friends), I am who I am.
I mention ALL of this because, as I said, in the days where I discovered myself this wasn't largely talked about, wasn't entertained, wasn't done. So, if being trans is all about fads and indoctrination where the hell did I, a kid born in the 70s with a mother who grew into adulthood in the 50s, even get the idea?
Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sorry that more support wasn't available for you when you were young. You make an excellent point that many trans children express who they are before they know that there are other people like them or know the words to describe who they are. This notion that being trans is a fad is, in my opinion, ultimately just a way for bigots to scare parents. It's manipulation, pure and simple.
Goddamn this absolutely killed me.
Am I wrong to say that this is a complete misunderstanding of gender?
You would be entirely correct.
The distinction between action and subject is interesting. Someone can do something which is transphobic, and/or they can be transphobic. It's an important distinction because the emotional effect, and the implications, of those two messages are quite different. Further, people may move fluidly between these different judgements without much discussion about that movement, and where one statement can be used to deduce the other.
I think both the festival organisers, and Dee, can be seen as making these movements. Dee's quote moves from talking about his actions, both his ally work and this recent controversy, and then moves to ask if he himself is transphobic. The festival organisers, who perhaps invited Dee to perform because of his allyship, have seen this incident, and decided that this transphobic incident justifies revoking their invitation. This can be interpreted as them holding Dee accountable for this incident, but also feel to me like a value judgement of Dee and his positions in general, more akin to deplatforming. That might be a purely emotional resonance based on the similarities of two tactics with different aims, though.
In terms of the blowback, I think this is an example where messaging is so important. I don't know anything about Dee's work and allyship, but even the best allies will sometimes make mistakes. If you say to someone you have a problem with something they did and you want them to make amends, they can do that and take accountability for that action. If you jump straight to it being an issue about their character though, they will get defensive and also are not sure of targeted action they can do to correct that issue.
I don't know what comms were like between Dee and the organisers. One point of interest is that the SF Pride press release was not linked from the news article, but Dee's official statement was! I found the SF Pride press release and it doesn't provide much more information other than saying it was a mutual agreement to part ways. So perhaps there has been an attempt at constructive dialogue here.
I think the same fluidity around judgements about actions vs judgements about people are also present in our criminal justice system and state rhetoric/propaganda around public safety, policing, crime, terrorism, etc. Some people commit crimes, and they might go to jail. But rarely are these people portrayed as 'people who committed a crime', rather they are portrayed as 'criminals', which has the effect of moving the notion of criminality onto them as people, rather than as a function of actions they took in a specific set of circumstances. Once the rhetorical device has implied a binary in the minds of the public (criminal vs good citizens) then the state uses the binary to Other one of the groups and construct a narrative about protecting 'us' from 'them'.
Perhaps further investigation of this fluidity could be an opportunity for developing new leftist optics and rhetoric. In the case of the 'trans debate', we can make it clear that we are not trying to attack people for their views, we're trying to hold them accountable for their actions. In the case of transformative justice, we can make it clear that people who have committed crimes are still people, that the 'class' of 'criminals' is not useful for creating a fair and effective justice system, is actively harmful, etc.
Not sure how to really conclude from there. Sorry for kinda a ramble post! ❤
I've heard this a few times, but every time, people think the "leftist orthodoxy" is something different. Is it that trans people are "born that way", or that people can change gender at will? Is it that nationalization and density will solve all our problems or that degrowth is the answer to climate change? Hell, leftists can't even agree on whether or not the concept of government is good.
It's hard for me to take a "party line" argument seriously when you can ask three leftists a question and get five opinions.
The problem isn't about what exactly that orthodoxy happens to be; it's about the inability to discuss deviations from that in a reasonable manner. Of course, not everything is up for debate, and there are limits to what counts as civil debate, even if you don't raise your voice and don't engage in disruptive tactics, just by the nature of the (local) overton window. But to me it seems that window can be extremely narrow.
To reiterate: Sometimes rightfully so. No minority should have to "rationally" tolerate someone else's "rational" argument why that particular minority is subhuman.
But the fact that your three leftists can tear each other to little gory bits over relatively inconsequential disagreements is worrying. Like, does it matter if I believe that trans people can change their gender at will, as long as I respect their rights? Yet I have very little hope that that stance will be tolerated, even in relatively mainstream leftist spaces. Predominantly online, tbf. I consider humans to be much more pleasant and patient in meat space.
I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts on this.
Do you have a need to enter leftist spaces where Trans people will be talking about their experiences and insert your opinions about the validity of who they are? Why does your desire to argue dispassionately about this trump their need to exist in a space where their existence isn't constantly questioned?
I'm not arguing here that questions of gender shouldn't be discussed in academic settings, or in publications or forums devoted to those discussions and questions. But I also don't see why any online space should be obligated to accommodate argumentation or discussion that calls into question the validity of someone's personal identity even if you support their legal rights.
I hope you understand that I'm not attacking you here, but I also think it might be worth considering why you consider it more important that you be able to express your opinion than it is for someone else be allowed to have a space where they're not obligated to engage with it.
Same.
I'm entirely, fully in agreement that there's a reason that arguments that question the validity of trans identities aren't tolerated in some spaces, particularly lgbt, particularly trans spaces. Let me clarify a few things:
No.
It does not.
Perhaps I should also clarify that I picked that example because I assumed from mtset's post that it was a matter of legitimate heterodoxy in the lgbt community, whether trans identities can be subject to change or not. (Identity here referring to the "latent variable" that a gender-questioning person might not be fully aware of, instead of the identity they are aware of or project outwards.) I assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that mtset implied that both views on that are valid, and not in conflict with being fully convinced of the validity of and accepting of trans people.
I could have picked de-growth vs nationalization just as easily.
Look, this isn't, as my first post already implied, a matter that is exclusive to trans issues. It isn't even exclusive to minority issues. You can take economic equality or climate justice issues if you like, and the problem will persist: Leftists are (in the right spaces) incredibly intolerant of other leftist ideas.
The problem is worse or better in some or other spaces and in some or other topics. Tildes is quite alright, for example. Twitter is, well, twitter, and thus a cesspool. Economic or climate issues are generally easier than lgbt, race or sexism issues. But it doesn't ever truly go away, in my experience. I've seen tildes discussions escalate beyond belief, that I would attribute at least partly to, well, orthodox thought.
I hope that recommendation of yours will change if you account for the above, as I hope it's clear I don't believe I am entitled to that. Let's take the spicy, perhaps ill-fated example I yoinked off mtset's comment: I don't expect to be allowed to debate that in lgbt spaces, (assuming it is as spicy as I inferred) but I also don't see why e.g. a more open-ended question on the same topic shouldn't be tolerated in generic leftist (i.e. non-lgbt-specific) spaces.
I suppose a lot of it possibly comes down to matters of experience. Perhaps I frequent shittier communities, and thus experience forms of the phenomenon that you don't. Perhaps we generally agree on the degree of what should or shouldn't be tolerated, but are talking past one another anyway, because you find yourself in an environment where that belief is undersatisfied, while I find myself in environments where it is oversatisfied?
Edit: Just clarifying in an edit, because I don't want to necro this (part of the) thread with stuff that's become increasingly off topic. I don't disagree with the two comments below. I see A) and B) as a continuum, as both topics, spaces, and the people within exist on a continuum of... sensitivity, is the word I think I'm looking for? But in my experience even under (A), there can be group think related problems. In B), I certainly understand (again, see previous) the need to cordon off certain topics... let me try and phrase it this way: For some controversial and/or orthodoxical(?) topics, I have little confidence that most spaces will accept a discussion of those, even if that discussion comes from an open-minded place, and is phrased with the greatest respect for any minorities affected. And again, I understand where that comes from. Even in a non-LGBT leftist space, leftists will want to keep LGBT people safe in there, so even a hint of a whiff of an idea of transphobia gets the boot immediately. I can't even say I disagree with that sentiment. But that isn't a satisfying solution, imo. I'm not saying we should open the flood gates. I'm not even saying the solution sits in between the extremes. Maybe the solution sits along another axis entirely. In short: I understand why it happens, but it still worries me. I don't have a satisfactory solution.
On the topic of this discussion occurring in ~lgbt, I was well aware of that. I had hoped to open/contribute to a side branch of this discussion that is more about the wider problem of orthodoxy/heterodoxy beyond just trans spaces, that discussion just happening in ~lgbt without any further relation to it. Didn't work. I'm sorry for my part in contributing to a less pleasant atmosphere here. Be assured that is the last thing I wanted. I've re-read my posts here and identified a few things I would've done differently, mostly around more clearly scoping my argument so as to not be misunderstood.
I think the reason you're getting the pushback you're getting is because A) "talking about general leftist issues in general leftist spaces" is a bit different than B) "talking about trans issues in non-lgbt-specific spaces":
I think for those reasons, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison to imply that the trans issues in this topic are part of an overall "orthodoxy" problem in leftist spaces; there are dynamics at play here that are unique to trans issues in particular.
Thanks, you did a much better job articulating this than I would have. And it's also worth noting that we are having this discussion in ~lgbt.
One problem that I have had in the past with Tildes directly in relation to this is that Tildes doesn't make it really obvious what group a topic was posted in if you come to if from the front page. It's there, but it's in small text and it's easy to miss it if you don't specifically look for it. And one might approach a discussion differently if you're coming to it in ~humanities or ~science vs ~lgbt. Not that I think it's great to make certain arguments in any of those places, but it's a lot less chill in a space like ~lgbt, I would think.
ETA: Read @dubteedub's reply.
I think reading the comment charitably they mean orthodoxy in the sense of "generally accepted or authorized belief". The word is typically used referring to religious organizations, but I've absolutely seen it used when referring to other non-religious groups and organizations. From the rest of the comment though, I'm guessing that the comparison to religious orthodoxy and heresy is probably intentional.
There's this common assertion that leftist spaces require monolithic thinking and punish anyone who steps outside the boundaries of acceptable thought. And there are certainly examples of that happening, but I think it gets heavily exaggerated, either by people who just don't have experience talking with real people or by folks who want to paint the left as being against freedom of expression and thought. I've asked an awful lot of stupid questions and said some pretty ignorant things in leftist spaces and have rarely encountered anything but patience.
I do think, though, that particularly in online spaces there's a lot of vigilance (maybe even hyper-vigilance) toward bad faith argument/questions. I think that this comes from a genuine place - from my experience leftist spaces online are frequent targets of bad faith engagement through JAQing (just asking questions), sealioning, devil's advocates, and just general trolling. It can require some effort to make sure that you are sincere in your discussions and questions, but that has never bothered me because I've seen how frustrating it can be to deal with trolls who are "just asking questions" or even well-intentioned internet "intellectuals" who want to devil's advocate someone's identity or existence.
Damn. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I apologize for being pedantic about something like this in ~lgbt. I wasn't aware of the prevalence of that phrase as an anti-trans dogwhistle. That sucks, and I'm genuinely sorry for trying to explain shit to you like I know what I'm talking about.
This seems like a nonsensical point to me.
A group of people using a word or phrase, especially in line with it's definition, doesn't transfer ownership to said group. Nor should you want to cede it to them. It's reasonable to take issue with the claims of orthodoxy, it's not reasonable to associate anyone who uses a term (again, in line with it's definition) as a member of or indirectly supporting said group.
I have no doubts there are attacks made in bad faith, but in my opinion that's no reason to throw out the English language when someone is engaging with you in presumably good faith.
I think you're jumping the gun a bit here.
This is the exact quote:
That's not calling out 'trans orthodoxy' in particular, it's claiming there is a general orthodoxy that exists in leftist spaces and applying that to this conversation. This notion of 'leftist orthodoxy' predates the current 'culture war' and while it's obviously something that probably originated in conservative spaces I think it tracks outside of that because their are some elements of truth to that. I mean, right here in this thread we are policing someone for using a word that other people have used, rather than addressing their point.
There used to be a 2-page disjointed ramble in this edit box. I'll try to shorten that.
I like this distinction of "problematic person" vs "problematic action". I think it's a vital part of the nuance we lost around controversial topics. Or maybe that nuance never existed to begin with. Even worse online.
Another thing that might be missing is that we don't consider degrees of separation when judging transgressions. Guilty by association is not a per se flawed concept, but it's important to remember that the associated guilt is weaker than the original one. I guess in that context, we should judge Dee Snider less on what he replied to, and more on what he replied.
I also think there's a place for judging someone by the bad and the good they do. While good deeds maybe don't make up for intentionally malicious harm someone caused, personally I believe that good deeds do make up for unintentionally causing harm, even if that harm itself is never properly addressed. At what exchange ratio? I don't know, but it isn't zero in my book. Though of course you probably want to maintain high standards for a sort of figurehead of a movement.
I have to say, I agree with this statement, though I'd like to be clear that the trans community is not special in this. I'd hazard the guess any amount of controversy leads to this kind of "immune response" from the community. This pattern permeates leftist communities and probably all political and many other non-political communities. Sometimes it's necessary to a degree, paradox of tolerance and all that, but I do feel it tends to get in the way an awful lot.
There, I shortened it to ~1 page. yay?