(The irony of that sentence is not lost on me.)
You also probably don't
know that it's been a rough week for the trans community. Granted, a lot of
weeks are rough weeks for the trans community--but this week, it has a little
to do with the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing
Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier, and a lot to do with the myriad of
different masks people like to use to dress up pervasive transphobia.
What do you say about a gal
like Abigail Shrier? She's an author, a freelance contributor to the Wall Street Journal,
and a TERF fanner of flames within the Gender Critical movement. Let's break
that down a bit before we press on: What is a TERF, and what exactly is the
Gender Critical movement?
On its face, TERF is an
easy acronym to understand: "Transgender-Exclusionary Radical
Feminist". In practice it's a little harder to pin down, as many who
associate themselves with the TERF label and its ideology are neither radical
nor feminist. Just so we’re clear, here:
Transgender: Denoting or relating to a person
whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their sex
assigned at birth.
Exclusionary: The tendency to deny (someone)
access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.
Radical: Advocating or based on thorough or
complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or
progressive section of a political party.
Feminist: One who supports the advocacy of
women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.
When you think
"radical feminist", you might picture a lot of things. Maybe a young
lesbian with an undercut, protesting outside the Westborough Baptist Church as Pussy Riot blares in the background. You're unlikely to picture
a modestly-dressed Christian woman in her late 60's sporting a lapel pin that reads
"RONALD REGAN FOR CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP". Surprisingly, you're just
as likely to see either of these women at a TERF rally, shouting in to a
megaphone about the sinister perversion of Hormone Replacement Therapy,
lamenting the proliferation of binders and gender-neutral restrooms, and
prophesizing the degradation or flat-out destruction of biological females.
Indeed, the TERF movement has been lately making bed-fellows with conservative
Christian think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research
Council--organizations that promote "traditional family values",
espousing woman's natural subordination to man and lambasting the depravity of
gay marriage. Not exactly what comes to mind when you think "radical
feminist", eh?
So let's call a spade a
spade and say that "TERF" is code for "Cisgender Woman Who
Doesn't Believe That Trans People Are Real".
("Cisgender", by the way, means "a person whose sense of identity and gender correspond to their sex assigned at birth". I don't want to assume the terminology with which people may or may not be familiar, so I'll continue to clarify terms wherever necessary throughout this piece.)
And what of the Gender
Critical movement? That phrase is a little harder to parse. All examination and
exploration of gender is, to a degree, critical. Whether you're a proponent of
equality and egalitarianism, or an advocate for "traditional",
prescriptive gender roles rooted in theological texts, or anything in-between,
forming any opinion or relationship to gender requires a
degree of "critical" thinking or behavior. In the context of social
discourse around transgender rights, "Gender Critical" tends to mean
"acknowledging gender only on the basis of XX/XY sex chromosomes and
corresponding reproductive organs; i.e. cisgender women and transgender men are
all women, and cisgender men and transgender women are all men." When
held up to the light, some glaring holes are immediately visible in this
definition: the approximate 275,000,000 global population of intersex people
(that is, people born with any of several variations in sex characteristics
including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones or genitals that, according to the
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the
typical definitions for male or female bodies") being the most
obvious, followed by people who have genital or reproductive surgery related to
medical conditions, people with endocrine disorders, and people who experience
forced genital mutilation. Oh yeah, and all the trans people of the world. According to the GC definition of what definitively
constitutes a man or a woman, all of these people have no assignation, no
place in the biological system of government.
So how does Abigail Shrier
fit into all this, again?
This past June, Shrier
published Irreversible Damage, a book that links the
increasing emergence and visibility of transgender people, specifically FTM
(Female-to-Male) teens, in Western society to the development of Rapid-Onset
Gender Dysphoria. It ultimately concludes that FTM gender transition is the
result of social pressure and internalized cultural misogyny, that MTF
(Male-to-Female) gender transition is a male attempt conquer and dominate
cisgender women, and suggests that the "transgender craze" will have disastrously
deleterious effects on generations of women to come.
Before we go any further, I
want to address the cornerstone of Shrier’s book: Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria.
This will necessitate some quoting of scholarly articles, and I ask that you
bear with me and read the following excerpts. It’s important, I promise.
"Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria" is described as "a type of adolescent-onset or late-onset gender dysphoria where the development of gender dysphoria is observed to begin suddenly during or after puberty in an adolescent or young adult who would not have met criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood". A website titled "We Are the Parents of ROGD Kids" provides the following context for the preceding definition: "Our children are young, naïve and impressionable, many of them are experiencing emotional or social difficulties. They are strongly influenced by their peers and by the media, who are promoting the transgender lifestyle as popular, desirable and the solution to all of their problems. And they are being misled by authority figures, such as teachers, doctors and counselors, who rush to "affirm" their chosen gender without ever questioning why."
The Australian Professional
Association for Trans Health released a statement last year that really sums up the medical consensus about ROGD: “The term ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’ is not, and has never been,
a diagnosis or health condition. [It] has been used in a single report
describing parental perception of their adolescent’s gender identity without
exploration of the gender identity and experiences of the adolescents themselves…
The term ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)’ is not a diagnosis or health
condition recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as
a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).”
The term “Rapid-Onset
Gender Dysphoria” was coined by Lisa Littman, an Assistant Professor at the Brown University
School of Public Health. It was first used in an article published in 2018
entitled Rapid-Onset
Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Study of Parental Reports. This article,
and the term itself, were immediately adopted and held up as a victory trophy by
anti-trans activists the world over. “FINALLY! SOME SCIENCE WE CAN GET BEHIND!
GET MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S BATHROOMS AND GET OUR DAUGHTERS TO STOP SAYING THEY'RE TRANS!” Within the scientific and
scholarly community, however, the article has been widely criticized for its data
collection methods and the limited scope used to draw conclusions about gender dysphoria
among young adults. Several articles have been published in direct response to
Littman’s 2018 report; one such article, authored by academic editor Daniel Romer,
offered the following criticism of Littman’s methodology:
One possibility to address the purpose that the study originally proposes is to follow a group of gender variant young people evaluated by mental health professionals in a longitudinal way, to assess if those who persist demanding gender affirmation differ (in terms of contact and social influence, or other factors) from those who do not persist. Another (much simpler) approach could involve a cross-sectional design, in which transgender youth answered questions concerning their networks and peer influence. In contrast to those possible approaches, Dr. Littman’s research provides only indirect evidence of the role of the influence of social and media contagion on young people’s gender identity. Littman's article recruited parents online. Some of the websites that posted recruitment information about the study might attract parents who are more likely to question their child's gender self-identification and the current best healthcare approaches. No youth were enrolled… Evidence also points to a low correlation between parents' and children’ self-evaluation in several domains of mental health. For example, regarding quality of life, a systematic review verified that parent and children do not agree in the evaluation for children non-observable states (such as emotions)… Furthermore, parents’ biases may be enhanced in the presence of stress and psychological symptoms. Studies have shown that this could be the case for a good proportion of parents of gender-variant children and adolescents, who tend to present negative attitudes toward their offspring's gender variation.
I wanted to include this dry, clinical language as
a foundation to what I’m about to say, and to make it perfectly, sparklingly clear:
The premises espoused in Shrier’s book are based
on a condition that is not medically recognized, and that was in fact created by
a singular author for a singular study performed two years ago.
It is indeed true that
research surrounding trans physical and mental health is scattershot and incomplete.
Shrier quotes Fox news articles as primary sources and cherry-picks
statistics to support the claim that being trans is like being in a cult,
that being trans is a cultural phenomenon that is mostly the result of
media influence and peer pressure, and that many who pursue medical transition
later regret their choices and detransition. And if you stand back, tilt your
head, close one eye and squint, it seems like it maybe it could be a sound argument.
Then you open both eyes and look closer, and as with the basis of the Gender
Critical movement in general, you start seeing holes all over the place. There
are numerous studies--some long-term, some short-term, some with large sample
sizes and other with groups of less than 20 people--that confirm the benefits
of medical transition and gender affirmation for transgender people. A quick search of "gender
transition" on Google Scholar will yield scores of articles to that effect. Two particularly persuasive articles are worth mentioning:
According to an examination
conducted by Cornell University of more than 50 studies related to gender
transition, the effects of transition are overwhelmingly positive. An
introduction to the study explains, "We conducted a systematic literature review of all
peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that
assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified
55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%)
found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender
people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies
concluding that gender transition causes overall harm." (Cornell University
Public Policy Research Portal)
In a journal article titled A Survey Study of
Surgeons’ Experience with Regret and/or Reversal of Gender-Confirmation
Surgeries, a total of 46 surgeons responded that out of the collective 22,725
patients on whom they had performed some type of gender-confirmation surgery, the
total number of patients that expressed post-surgical regret was 62. That’s
0.0027% of patients. The survey concludes that, “regret after gender-affirming surgery is
an exceedingly rare event. Reasons for regret or detransition are diverse,
ranging from change in gender identity to societal and relationship pressures
to post-surgical pain.” (Oregon Health & Science University)
Shrier doesn’t have the
facts on her side, but that hardly seems to matter to those who laud her book
as important, ground-breaking, revolutionary… Statistics and facts are almost
beside the point, even if they're in the favor of trans people and trans allies.
As we've seen time and again, you can have all the science and all the facts on
your side but still fail to persuade someone whose mind is squarely made up.
The effects of climate change, the efficacy of vaccinations, the highly
contagious nature of COVID, the history of white supremacy in America, the fact
that race is not a biological attribute... Anyone who denies the reality of
these phenomena can be shown all the facts, all the scientific data, all the
proof in the world, and studies have shown that it has little to no impact on
changing a "denier's" opinion. On the contrary, it’s often had the
opposite effect! Those who would claim that vaccines cause Autism, when shown large
bodies of empirical data that disprove that myth, have responded that they are even
less likely to vaccinate their children after being confronted with evidence
of vaccine safety and efficacy. Transphobic rhetoric and behavior cling to
terms like “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” in much the same way, despite the glaringly
obvious flaws in the research.
So, how did the LGBTQ+
community react to Irreversible Damage? They were far from gobsmacked. Shrier
has long been a prominent voice in the Gender Critical movement, and her transphobia-masquerading-as-feminism is old news. Nevertheless,
there was certainly push-back and renunciation and expression of outrage:
trans people and allies alike were quick to point out Shrier's selective and
pseudo-scientific approach, the large body of evidence that is contrary to
Shrier's claims, and the potential harm that such a book poses to trans people
in an already-hostile society. The outpouring of criticism from the LGBTQ+
community was heard, and large retailers like Amazon and Target made some
changes in response: Amazon eliminated paid ads for the book, and Target pulled
the book from their shelves altogether.
Her proponents immediately
cried foul. "CENSORSHIP! FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED! THE BIG
TRANS AGENDA IS GAGGING THIS VISIONARY AND SUPPRESSING THE VIOCES OF
DETRANSITIONERS!"
Would it surprise you to
learn that Irreversible Damage is still the #1 best-seller in
LGBT Studies books on Amazon, despite the "no paid ads" controversy? Because it is. And Target, in a milquetoast about-face,
has returned Irreversible Damage to its shelves.
In the midst of all this,
in strolls Grace Lavery. Lavery is an author, a professor of English at UC
Berkeley, and a trans activist. A transwoman herself, Lavery frequently engages—both
professionally and personally—with a seemingly boundless stream of opinions,
ideas, ranting and ramblings about trans issues online. This week, she tossed out a string of tweets about the Irreversible Damage debacle. Within 24 hours, all hell broke loose.
The infamous tweets can
be seen below:
So, it’s obvious (at least,
to me it’s obvious) that Lavery is being hyperbolic and that her tweet was not in
fact a directive to steal and burn books, but a dry criticism of how valueless
and harmful the book Irreversible Damage is to the trans community. You
remember hyperbole, right?
“I’m literally dead.”
“I’m starving.”
“I’ll kill you if you say
that again.”
“Go fuck yourself.”
None of these phrases are to
be taken literally, and people employ them all the time. Why, then, is it so unlikely
and difficult to comprehend that a transwoman might have some disdain for Irreversible
Damage, and express that disdain through hyperbole?
Lavery
went on to clarify that her tweet was not meant to be taken literally, which
was met with skepticism at best and outright violent threats at worst:
And
here’s where it starts to get interesting: Lavery, while affirming that her initial tweets were meant in jest,
started to take the cries for “freedom of speech” and the assertion that “all
book-burning is fascism” and flip them around, creating a lovely paradox that
sailed cleanly over the heads of her critics and decriers:
As I read through the
tweet-thread about theoretical book-burning and the difference between destroying
a physical commodity and an intangible idea, I was by turns angry, aghast,
proud and in awe of Lavery’s (typical) equilibrium between razor-sharp wit and her
ability to remain graceful under pressure. She demonstrated, yet again, her adept
ability to craft and sustain a surprising and unlikely argument, like a fire
slowly and carefully kindled in the midst of a roaring bluster.
I agree with Lavery’s
assessment whole-heartedly. Burning books has long been associated with facism and oppression. However, burning an individual book, in protest, is not an
act of censorship or a suppression of anyone’s freedom of speech. Neither
is a private entity, like Target or Amazon, refusing to advertise or stock a
book a violation of an individual’s first-amendment rights. People seem to
think “freedom of speech” means “I can say whatever I want, and no one can
disagree with me, and no one can take direct action to combat what I say.”
What does the first
amendment actually protect? Let’s look at the text.
“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”
It protects individuals from the State censoring
the free expression of ideas. The State is supposed to be
neutral (laughable and unrealistic as that might sound). The State is
imbued with institutional power that no individual can possess. But what of individuals?
Other organizations and entities? Why, they’re free to ignore, denounce,
attack, oppose and discourage whatever ANYONE might say. That’s the thing about
free speech—it’s a two-way street. Just as everyone has the freedom to speak,
everyone also has the freedom to reject what’s being said; to walk away and
refuse to listen any longer; to persuade others that what’s being said is
nonsense; or even to organize collective action to combat that speech. All
those actions are demonstrations of free expression. Anyone can speak their
mind, but that right doesn’t come with the entitlement to a platform, a podium,
a microphone or an audience.
Abigail Shrier had every right to author Irreversible
Damage, and whomever wants to read it has every right to do so—but that
doesn’t translate to a “right” to have specific outlets carry the book, or
shield the book or its author from criticism, or even protect physical copies
of the book from being burned in protest by individuals. Fun fact! There are
several noted incidents of radical feminists participating in symbolic
book-burnings, from the misogynistic medical textbook Obstetrics and
Gynecology (Willson,1971) to a spiritual guide to sexual orientation
conversion therapy called Pastoral Psycho-Therapy (Rodríguez
& Ramírez, 2019). Freedom of that sort doesn’t seem to be of interest to
TERFs and the Gender Critical movement at present—it doesn’t suit their cause
or help proliferate their ideology à la mode—so they selectively
remember the book-burnings of State regimes and forget the acts of individual protest
within their own “radical feminist” ranks. The GC movement also continues to unabashedly
endorse a slurry of other forms of oppression—from bills limiting healthcare availability
to trans people, to strongly rejecting the acknowledgement of trans people
throughout history in school curricula. Might they object to these efforts if
the subjects of these oppressive and prejudicial acts were “women” instead of “trans
people”?
The backlash following Lavery’s original (and subsequent) tweets has been swift and scathing. There have been demands for her termination from the UC Berkeley, calls for her prosecution for inciting unlawful behavior, and a constant bombardment by transphobic slurs and threats of violence.
News organizations, both small-town and nationally syndicated, have picked up the story, with most headlines reading as some variation of “UC Berkeley Professor Calls for Book Burning!” Lavery has confirmed that most of these news outlets have not reached out to her for comment.
Throughout
the onslaught, Lavery has remained mostly positive and continued to update her
followers on social media as to how things are progressing. But the ordeal and the
aftermath is a collective experience of suffering for trans people that has no
expiration date. Because:
A hateful woman still wrote
a hateful book.
That book is still being
purchased and read.
It’s author is gaining
money and power.
It’s ideology is
proliferating.
Another woman criticized this
book and it’s author, and was publicly flailed for it.
She was flailed in the name
of free expression.
She was flailed for her free expression anger about a book that seeks to undermine, delegitimize and harm
her and women like her.
In the name of free
expression, she is receiving threats to her employment, to her social standing,
to her own physical safety.
And all of it—ALL OF IT—boils down to transphobia.
Dressing up transphobia with different masks—“DEFENDING FREE SPEECH”, “PROTECTING WOMEN”, "SAVE THE CHILDREN", “MORAL DECENCY”, “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM”, “BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM”—makes it all the more pervasive and dangerous and effective. This is nothing new, but familiarity with or frequency of exposure to the grandiose displays and clever contortions of hateful bigotry doesn’t dull the pain it causes. It compounds, it piles up, it makes the hurting heavier.
Transgender Awareness Week... It’s been a long week. It’s been a tiring week. And still, we live: we cry, we scream, we fight, we work, we love, we fuck, we eat and sleep and write and dream. We persist for ourselves, and for each other, and for a world that might someday come to be, if only we persist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/conservative-group-hosts-anti-transgender-panel-feminists-left-n964246
https://www.thedailybeast.com/radical-feminists-and-conservative-christians-team-up-against-transgender-people
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/magazine/trump-government-heritage-foundation-think-tank.html
https://www.lexico.com/
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/22/science/do-races-differ-not-really-genes-show.html
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/03/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-trans-healthcare-debunked/
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/31/why-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-is-bad-science/
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/vaccine-denial-psychology-backfire-effect/
https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/feminists-burn-book-about-changing-sexual-orientation/
https://michigantoday.umich.edu/2017/08/24/book-burning/
https://rachelemoss.com/2020/11/17/book-burning-womb-burning/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038026120934693?journalCode=sora
https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-littman-who-coined-the-term-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria/
a
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6212091/
https://everyone.plos.org/2019/03/19/correcting-the-scientific-record-and-an-apology/
https://english.berkeley.edu/profiles/386
https://twitter.com/graceelavery?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
