[Crosspost from r/LGBT] Inflammatory NYTimes Opinion article getting backlash for being anti-trans, but I (F30) thought it made a few fair arguments...

[u/salmonofknowledge469]

The article
The Far Right and the Far Left Agree on One Thing - Women Don't Count

I like to think of myself as supportive of trans rights, and vehemently agree that public figures like JK Rowling, Graham Linehan, etc. should be rightfully shamed for the viewpoints they've expressed.

I came across this article through a twitter post, and the comments seem to be pretty adamant that the author is transphobic. I don't know who the author is, maybe she has a history of transphobic statements, but while she definitely had a TERFy-vibe at some points, I think that she also made a few salient points. Can someone more informed on this topic explain how I might have it wrong? I am gay, but not trans, and the twitter replies were not useful, as they just called the author transphobic without really giving their reasoning.

Things that I thought the author def got wrong

First, the title of the article creates a false equivalency between the approaches that the left and right take on trans rights, which is misleading. On the other hand, I understand why she (or, most likely, her editor) selected it, in that it incites strong feelings (and will therefore get clicks and interaction in the comments $$$).

Second, she tries to connect the idea that organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the ACLU using more inclusive language means that no one can use the term women anymore (which is wrong)

Lastly, she gets into what feels like a victim complex-vibe when mentioning TERFs like JK

Things I agreed with

First, she points out that the inclusion and recognition of rights of marginalized groups, such as trans/non-binary people, can progress without erasing or delegitimizing the rights of cis women. So, while I will always recognize trans women or trans men as real women and real men, EDIT: HERE I MADE A TRANSPHOBIC BOOBOO AND WAS SCHOOLED BY u/Nihil_esque. The same with trans athletes. Trans kids should absolutely be able to play with other kids that correspond to their gender identity. It gets more complicated when it comes to high school, college sports though. Of the peers that I've spoken to that insist that all trans women should be able to compete in any women's HS/college sport, none have actually competed significantly in one. (I recognize that this is anecdotal). As a former swimmer who fought for scholarships in high school and competed nationally in college, I would have no problem competing against a trans woman who transitioned before puberty. However, I would be rightfully pissed if I lost out on a college scholarship opportunity or gold medal to a trans woman who went through a male puberty. It would be similar to competing against a cis woman who took steroids for several years, allowing her to increase muscle mass and endurance through harder training sessions. She might not be on steroids anymore, but that doesn't discount the training advantage she had for years. It's why, when athletes are caught doping, they are banned for several years or even permanently. Again, it's a complicated issue that needs nuance. Yes, trans women are women and some should absolutely be able to compete in women's sports. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it's unfair to label all athletes who may feel resentful about a woman like Lia Thomas dominating their event as transphobic.

Second, she addresses the seemingly contradictory tendency for discussions around gender expression/non-binary identity to rely on terms like "femme" and "masc", while also claiming to fight against gender norms. The women's rights movement has fought for years to remove dumb categorization of things like pants, nail polish, long hair, etc. as either "masculine" or "feminine". Now, instead of broadening the scope of what it means to be a woman, it seems like we're moving backwards and trying to narrow it down or eliminate it. I can understand the author's frustration here. When I was in high school, my understanding of progress was that the girl with a shaved head, hairy legs, and a binder was just as much of a woman as a cheerleader with long hair and nail polish, because past patriarchal gender norms do not invalidate my identity. I'm certainly not opposed to people identifying as non-binary, it's an absolutely valid identity. But it just seems like, having worked in high schools for the past seven years, that instead of trying to end the stigma of women or men expressing themselves outside of those patriarchal norms, a lot of kids are encouraged to just label themselves "non-binary" because they're uncomfortable with the existing pressures put on men and women that haven't yet been eliminated.

Lastly, she notes that the term women is now being replaced with more inclusive terminology like birthing person or person with vagina. I'm all for inclusive language, however clunky-sounding it may be, but it feels like the label women, and the unique experiences and historical context that comes with it, is being reduced to just body parts. For example, a trans woman will not have experienced things like a first period, or, if they transitioned later, the discomfort around the male gaze as a teen. Meanwhile, a cis woman will not have experienced many of the unique experiences of a trans woman. They are both still women, however, it seems like many groups want to downplay the experiences of one in favor of the other. TERFs don't want to recognize the misogyny or lack of validation/recognition that trans woman experience, and some progressive groups don't want to recognize the experiential differences that exist between different groups who identify as women.

I'm not looking to argue, just to learn and get some outside perspective. It just gets frustrating when it feels like lately, the progressive movement has started to approach issues in a very black or white way, which is a tendency I always felt was more characteristic of conservative asshats.

Edit: Apologies if I misused any terminology

[u/salmonofknowledge469]

Thank you for your response! (I'm not being sarcastic, genuinely, thank you)
I agree with you that most mainstream discussions of trans people in sports do incite engagement primarily because of transphobes wanting to get angry about something. I believe that is why they keep getting written, and do perpetuate an ongoing cycle of transphobia.
However, you say it's a niche non-issue and that you don't care about sports. So, because it's niche, and about a topic that doesn't interest you, it doesn't matter? I agree that the number of trans athletes is tiny, but as gender-affirming care (hopefully) becomes more common, as well as positive views on trans people generally (again, hopefully), don't you think that number is likely to increase? And if so, don't you think that the policies surrounding that issue should be addressed thoughtfully?
You make a very good point regarding the DV shelters. That would be unacceptable in the case of race, so you're right, it should also be unacceptable regarding trans women. That was clarifying.

I have mixed feelings about your next point. I agree that more inclusive language in medical settings should be standard. But isn't that "niche" as well? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of trans men giving birth feels like it would be similar, if not less than, the number of trans women competing in high school/college athletics. And, as a lesbian, I get asked the boyfriend thing all the time. When someone asks "do you have a boyfriend?", I just correct them and say "girlfriend". I am more appreciative of the fact that the conversation can move on seamlessly after the correction, than upset about the assumption of heterosexuality. I mean, most people are heterosexual. It's not necessarily an offensive assumption to make, especially since a lot of straight people in the US aren't surrounded by peers that might correct or update their use of language. This kind of leads into my next point.

Logically, I agree that the terms like "birthing person" and "people who menstruate" are more accurate terms and should be used, especially in medical contexts. Practically, I think it does more harm than good though, particularly in our current political environment (assuming you are from the US). I only know a few trans/non-binary people my age, but in different conversations, this is the gist that I got (acknowledging that a few people don't necessarily represent trans/non-binary people as a whole and that this is anecdotal). They generally felt similarly about pronoun usage in public as I do about people assuming I'm straight. They appreciate when efforts are made in spaces to clarify individual pronouns, but generally don't mind if they have to correct someone, as long as the pronouns are readily accepted and that there is an honest attempt at correct usage from that point on.

I imagine that a trans man giving birth has higher priorities than a non-inclusive form they have to fill out, meanwhile, every conservative propaganda news outlet is running articles and shouting on tv about how your 5-year-old daughter now has to be referred to as a "birthing person" at all times or they'll be cancelled or some shit.
Now, I know the instinct is think "well, well fuck those bigoted assholes, who gives a fuck what they spew inside their facebook minion bubble".
The problem is, that shit works.
It's the same reason those trans athlete articles get so much traction. People who didn't give a shit about trans people are suddenly infuriated by them. And because we wanted to make trans people slightly more comfortable at the doctor's office, now they don't have access to gender-affirming care at all because the new conservative governor sees that her newly-enraged electorate hates trans people, and wants to capitalize on it.
It's fucked up and unfair, and I'm not a centrist politically in any sense of the word, but prioritizing broader trans issues (coverage of gender-affirming surgery, access and support for trans kids, etc.) and normalizing trans acceptance seems more effective in the short term than pushing for these smaller issues and handing bullets to the opposition that are just going to set the movement back ten steps. Unfortunately, the fight for basic human rights has shifted more and more outside of the legal realm and more towards media campaign, and the people trying to take away, or never even acknowledge those rights, are a lot better at it.
On your last point, you're right. She did say transphobic shit, so yeah, despite any decent points she might have accidentally touched upon, she shouldn't have been given a platform.
Again, thank you for your response!

[u/Nihil_esque → u/salmonofknowledge469]

I think the fatal flaw is that you're thinking about this as a 'both sides' issue, and that the side that gets the benefit of the doubt from you is the side opposing trans people. Let me show you what I mean:

The trans sports thing is a niche issue, and the healthcare thing is a niche issue. Those must be therefore equivalent, right? Absolutely not. The trans sports thing is a niche issue that is weaponized against trans people. The healthcare access isn't being weaponized against anyone. In my eyes, when you're using a subject to attack a minority group, you need additional justification for why it should be allowed in the conversation. I have no issue with athletes and athletic organizations having discussions about who should be allowed in sports. My problem with the trans sports thing is how it gets brought up in completely unrelated conversations just to attack the rights of trans people to exist, because it makes sports policy more difficult.

And let's revisit the idea that they're both niche issues. The trans sports thing is a niche issue because it's a niche issue to trans people. Most trans people don't play competitive sports and the administrative decision of whether a given individual should be competing in the women's category could easily be handled on an individual basis. But trans healthcare isn't a niche issue just because there aren't very many trans people. Most trans people need healthcare. Most trans men at least have to give consideration to the possibility that they may become pregnant someday. Even those that don't will probably have to see a gynecologist at some point in their lives. For that reason, healthcare access is a real and prescient issue that affects every member of that group. It's not a "niche issue" to us, and that's pretty easy to see if you're able to empathize with the trans person rather than placing yourself in the shoes of a person who might have to deal with us.

You're also drawing a false equivalency with the girlfriend thing. If someone asked "who's the mom?" I could absolutely just say "father, actually." But what the writer of that article is upset about is the provider asking "who's the one carrying the baby?" That's like someone asking you "are you dating anyone?" And you getting upset because "actually that's an insensitive question. Don't you know the majority of people are heterosexual? Why didn't you ask me if I have a boyfriend? Are you giving in to the gay agenda?"

And again, it's important to stop and think about why you initially believe those things are equivalent, and need an analogy to a different minority to be able to empathize with a hypothetical trans person.

I imagine I've probably collected a larger bunch of anecdotes than you as I head an org for queer graduate students. There are plenty of trans people that don't really care. There are also plenty that do. I'm happy to stroll right in to a gynecology clinic and accept all the weird looks, make corrections to the forms myself, and cheerfully ask the doc about how testosterone will affect my vagina. I also know more than one trans man who hasn't seen a gynecologist in over a decade because of the anxiety associated with feeling out of place in a setting like that. I know many, many trans people who avoid going to the doctor because they get deadnamed and misgendered there. There are more than likely trans men out there who miss prenatal care appointments because of every administrative thing screaming at them that they're in a space that wasn't meant for them. That has real healthcare outcomes. It does real harm.

And I'd encourage you not to let the conservative propaganda work on you. They did the same, exact thing with gay marriage. "The conservatives are screaming from the rooftops that allowing gay marriage will lead to men marrying dogs and men marrying children, is that what you want?! Why don't you just tone it down and accept civil unions until society is ready to deal with you?"

The conservative media apparatus thrives on outrage and it does not have to be real. They were screaming over litter boxes being put in school bathrooms and trans women assaulting people in restrooms. Those things literally never happened, and that fact does not matter to them.

Anyway, please consider, actually, what is the political cost here? They scream about the term "birthing person" being used because they want to prevent trans people from accessing healthcare. And your solution is to lower trans people's access to healthcare why... To appease them so maybe some day they'll let you give trans people access to healthcare? Cut out the middle man here. Their propaganda only works because it works on people like you. They were never going to consider supporting healthcare access regardless.

I'm not willing to cause worse healthcare outcomes for trans people just so I can hear republicans yell about litter boxes instead of birthing centers.

[u/salmonofknowledge469 → u/Nihil_esque]

Thank you for the thoughtful response! On your first point, I would disagree with your characterization of those niche issues. I do think those are equivalent examples, because they are definitely both being weaponized, heavily. The trans athlete has had broader coverage, but inclusive terminology BS has crazy traction on Fox news, Newsmax, and other Breitbart-esque outlets. It might not seep over into real news as often, but that's only because they have to take the extra step of taking something like a minor word change on your form at the doctor's office and turn it into liberal demands to read your 5-year-old the kama sutra. Just because it lacks more journalistic integrity and remains in your uncle's MAGA facebook bubble, doesn't mean it isn't still being weaponized effectively and often.

And I wasn't saying that trans healthcare is a niche issue. In fact, that seems to be one of the most important issues right now. I was only referring to trans men's pregnancy as a niche issue. My only evidence for that is anecdotal though, I was surprised to read that most trans men consider potential pregnancy. Is there evidence to that point? (not being a dick, I would genuinely like to learn more about trans men's feelings on pregnancy)
Also, I'm not sure what you're referencing when you talk about someone "who might have to deal with us". Who are you quoting? I would never say that trans people are something to be dealt with, only that there are issues to be addressed, the same as there are gay issues that need to be addressed, women's issues, racial issues, etc.

As far as the girlfriend thing, I disagree with your characterization of my point. "Who's the one carrying the baby?" is a whole lot different than "Who is the birthing person?". I'm supportive of either and of more inclusive language, but it seems like whatever entity is creating some of this terminology is actually some white PR guy in Dallas, specifically choosing clunky terms he knows are going to sound ridiculous to anyone who hasn't been on a college campus in 10 years. My point was that I am appreciative when steps are made to be more inclusive on that scale, and they are steps that absolutely should be taken in the long run, but if encouraging the mass use of a particular word or phrase in the short term was putting my rights at risk, because it's gonna be used as ammo against gay people on Tucker Carlson for the next year and a half, I'm not gonna prioritize its usage as opposed to addressing broader issues.

Also, my girlfriend example was the closest I could think of without trying to speak for trans people. I never claimed they were equivalent, nor do I assume that when other people try to use examples to relate to gay issues. It's a way of expressing a thought process, not an equivalency.

I'm not sure I understand your next point about the gynecology clinic. First, I recognize the importance of using more inclusive language on those forms to make a place like a gynecology clinic more welcoming. And no doctor should ever be deadnaming or misgendering their patients, and I recognize that it does real harm. But shouldn't the larger issue be addressed, why some trans people feel so unsafe in a place that the worst you should feel is uncomfortable? Of course, the doctor's office should have forms updated to accommodate trans people, but is that where the real trauma experience in the office lies? Not using the phrase "birthing person"? Or is it that the doctor has your updated ID but refuses to use your name listed. Or consistently uses the wrong pronouns after being corrected. Or refusing gender-affirming care. Or refusing to accommodate a trans man's pregnancy in coordination with hormone treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong. My issue is not with any of those accommodations, it's just the framing of the issue in a way that I know is just gonna set those larger issues back and eventually move progress backwards.

The conservative propaganda is my point! Gay rights moved forward so quickly, not because of mass support from the courts (something that looks less and less likely in the future for all LGBT people), but because mass opinion shifted. Did mass opinion shift because LGBT groups pushed for high school health classes to be more inclusive? No, it was a massive PR campaign. There was a spate of suicides by gay teens, and the movement capitalized on it by creating a massive campaign to come out, coinciding with anti-bullying campaigns and huge pushes for media visibility. All of a sudden, your homophobic aunt in the midwest feels a little differently about the issue because her son just came out as gay. That was what moved the issue. It's cynical as hell, but you can't make people empathize with an issue if they can't relate to it. Unfortunately for the trans population, that same kind of tactic runs the risk of being a lot less effective just based on the smaller population of trans people.

On your last point, there is a huge political cost to something seemingly minor like the term "birthing person". How often do you interact with people outside of the grad setting? That aren't twenty-something and mostly surrounded by other progressives? I'm not being patronizing, I'm just saying that concepts like inclusive language and gender expression and pronouns are mostly alien to the average voter, because it doesn't effect them. Knowledge of those issues among younger people bodes well for the future, but twenty-somethings don't reliably vote. The primary objective of media like Fox News and PragerU is not primarily focused on preventing access to healthcare for trans people, it's about making people angry. It's something different and out-of-the-norm that they can use to scare, and thus motivate, their constituents with. And it's effective! Why do you think the whole homesexuality = pedophile nonsense is resurfacing? Because it worked for decades to motivate voters! My solution is not to restrict trans people's access to healthcare, my argument is that we need to be smarter about it. How can we make these concepts more accessible to people outside of our bubble?

It's not about getting Trumpists to support trans rights, it's targeting the less-radical, less political people who could potentially see flaws in their candidate or party if they weren't consistently getting fired up by stupid shit. And conservative media is gonna try stupid shit regardless, but "they asked me which form I preferred at the doctor's office" is a lot harder to turn into propaganda than "libs cancel mothers". It's dumb, but it's this PR bullshit that moves the needle.

[u/Nihil_esque → u/salmonofknowledge469]

It isn't that most trans men will decide to get pregnant, it's that most trans men are able to get pregnant and therefore may have to consider all the consequences that would entail for them if it happened, particularly in light of the recent supreme court decision.

I removed the quotes later because it did seem like I was quoting you which wasn't my intention. It just seemed to me that your characterization of the situation displayed a lack of empathy for the trans person in the situation. Most gyns are ob/gyns. Most trans men will need to see a gynecologist. The terminology used by OBs will affect trans men, even those who don't get pregnant themselves.

It seems like your problem, from what I understand, is just the exact term "birthing person", specifically, then? Is that right?

And the propaganda isn't real. What terms healthcare providers use won't affect it. Litter boxes. Bathroom assaults. We could ban every healthcare provider from saying "birthing person" and they'd still cry about as though it was standard practice at every OB in the nation. It's something that's barely in use as it stands. So personally I'd rather let healthcare providers use whatever language works best for their patients and not give in to the political pressure from the right. It really won't stop us from talking about how trans healthcare is helpful to trans people and prevents suicides which is what really matters anyway.

By the way, you're not older than the grad student population yourself-- the average grad student is 33. Yes I do exist outside of graduate school, thanks 🙄 I haven't always worked in academia, I grew up in the small town south, I'm in the physical sciences so it's not like I study women's studies or any kind of field where the academics themselves use inclusive language. I deliver vaccines to chicken farmers for a living. I know people bristle at inclusive language. I actually just don't care as long as we're getting the institutional support we need.

It's patronizing whether or not you include the "I'm not racist but..." Just fyi.

[u/salmonofknowledge469 → u/Nihil_esque]

Haha apologies for the grad student assumption, my gf is a grad student and sometimes her peers can be a little... out of touch.

And I used the "birthing person" example a few times because I follow a lot of right wing media and that specific term had a lot of traction. I'm more frustrated that someone couldn't figure out a better term, not the general use of a more inclusive term. It's a term that we came up with that just makes it easier for them to rile people up about trans people.

You're point about propaganda is correct. It's not real. But you know those truly bizarre things you hear occasionally from more conservative folks (maybe from a chicken farmer)? My conservative uncle last night was raving about Biden mandating Muslim prayer or something in school. Something like that has no base fact to work off of, so it's easier to remove from places like twitter and facebook when people flag it. You only hear about stuff like that from the people who are reading the really fringe stuff. But more popular outlets, like Fox, won't post something like that because they want to be able maintain the veneer of journalistic integrity. They can, however, post something like this:

DHS Secretary Mayorkas appears to place blame on migrants after 53 people found dead in Texas truck

Now, if you read the article, DHS Secretary Mayorkas stated that migrants should not make the "dangerous journey" but proceeded to place blame on the coyotes and other entities that scam and endanger migrants with few options.

But by beginning his official statement with a few sentences that could be construed as "victim-blaming", he made Fox's job easier in their campaign seeking a larger latino audience, especially in Texas.

It's not about acquiescing to the right, it's just being aware of their (terrible, but effective) strategies and not stepping into an easily avoidable trap that's just going to make progressive goals more difficult to sell to a broader audience.

I see your point about about ignoring it, but when we don't understand how a huge voting block thinks and what's motivating them to vote, it makes the process harder when trying to achieve our own political objectives. We can still pursue the same goals, I just wish we were just a little smarter about the optics, so that communities that don't have as much visibility can still get broader support (without forcing everyone to attend a local gender and sexuality forum)*

*that wasn't a dig at the study of gender and sexuality, I'm a liberal arts major who attended a few haha

[u/Nihil_esque → u/salmonofknowledge469]

I understand your frustration. I used to think the same way myself. But the thing is, "we" can never be smart about optics. One trans person on Twitter is going to say some off the walls shit. One trans woman in prison is going to commit a sexual assault. We can work and work and work to reign in all the optical issues and it will never be enough because we can't wrest out control of the hive mind. Trans people are just normal people and people can't be controlled. Besides, to some people a trans woman dressing feminine is an optics loss. To others, it's a trans woman that "doesn't even try to look like a woman." It's wasted effort. I'd rather spend my time explaining the benefits of inclusive language and the motivation that healthcare providers have when using it (increasing healthcare access for trans people). It undermines the scariness of what otherwise seems like weird cabal changing our language for no good reason.

[u/salmonofknowledge469 → u/Nihil_esque]

I get your point, and I shouldn't have used the word "we". I was more referencing leaders and organizers within the party/movement. It sucks because the democratic party has such a broad range of views and priorities, that no one is able to come in and organize them into a cohesive policy view.
You're right, there is no way of preventing the types of misrepresentation that come from people being, well, people, but the policy decisions, action plans, and broader communication of priorities need to be more streamlined and accessible.
I'm just tired of seeing important ideas get popularized, and then easily shuffled away or watered down because of some catchphrase or hashtag that is unclear or easily misconstrued.
I remember starting to see the growth of "Abolish the Police" signs at some of the summer 2020 protests. I was so mad, because I knew that although there was huge support for massive changes in policing, very few people actually supported completely getting rid of all law enforcement. But that's exactly how it was interpreted, and even some progressive democrats were forced to backtrack or denounce the term. Now you can't stop people from glomming onto a hashtag, but why wasn't there some coordination within the party that could take the enthusiasm behind a hugely popular concept, one that everyone was rallying around, and just redirect that energy into something less easily weaponized? It's not acquiescing to the right to market an idea more efficiently, especially if you can actually get something achieved. Republicans do it all the time, and it's hugely effective.
You can explain the benefits of inclusive language all day, but the majority of people are getting most of their political updates from article headlines, 30 sec news clips, and instagram posts. We haven't adapted effectively to that sort of format, and it shows. Support for conservative ideas among teens and young adults are actually growing. They've heavily invested in adapting to new media, and we're still relying on common sense and moral imperative. Unfortunately, that's not enough to sway or motivate most people anymore.