Defining Trans Identity By Our Choices? (Re Mia Mulder)
Also, Gender Dysphoria and the Trans Language Wars
Today, I want to reply to the recent video titled 'Detransition, Gender' by trans woman YouTuber Mia Mulder. In the video, Mulder raised the point that, not that long ago, many people accepted the idea that, if you were a trans woman, you could have 'the surgery', and then you could really 'become a woman'. Mulder said that, while that view was still problematic, it was sort of 'progressive' because the category of 'woman' isn't locked off in the way most of us think about it today, and because it focuses on the choices trans people make, not what a trans person is, on an (objectively?) unknowable level. She also raised the point that the traditional trans narrative, i.e. there is this consistent gender identity that has always been deep inside you, might not make sense to some trans people.
I think there are three main themes to unpack here: firstly, the idea that a trans woman could 'have the surgery' to 'become a woman'; secondly, the idea that transness could be defined by the choices trans people make; and finally, the conventional gender identity narrative and its application to actual trans people's lives.
Firstly, the idea that a trans woman could 'have the surgery' to 'become a woman' (in the sense that they would become just like genetic women) was always untrue from a scientific point of view, and that view was never really accepted by everyone either. There are many places around the world where trans people have never been able to change their birth certificate after 'having the surgery', for example. Moreover, given the objective untruth of the idea, it could never be consciously absorbed into a commonly accepted social consensus, the way gay marriage has been, for example. This means that, the idea could only be de-facto accepted when trans people were not part of the common consciousness. Once trans issues went mainstream and became a common topic of discussion, the idea would naturally be 'defeated' in the marketplace of ideas. I understand that, in the current moment of backlash, the past de-facto consensus could look comparatively attractive to some trans people, but it was never really a sustainable consensus (if you could even call it that), because it was not based on any objective truth. It is therefore not something we should aspire to go back to. Instead, we should aim to achieve real acceptance based on the objective truth.
Secondly, I think the idea that transness could be defined by the choices trans people make, especially the objectively observable choices they make, could be something to consider. Even if no surgery can turn a trans woman into a biological woman, the choice to 'live as a woman' itself is already an objectively observable choice. This does not mean that trans people need to 'pass' to be valid, but by some combination of name change, clothing, mannerisms, hormones and /or surgery (not necessarily doing all of this, but doing 'enough' to achieve the desired effect), trans women can signal to the world that they want to be perceived as women, and most people can accept that. I guess this is what some people, especially moderate conservatives, mean when they say they accept trans people but expect trans women to 'make some effort' to present as a woman, and that this would make it easier for them to use she/her pronouns in a social context. Many 'progressive' activists mischaracterize this point of view by saying that it discriminates against non-passing trans people, especially those without the financial means to undergo expensive surgeries. But this is a strawman, because what is demanded here is 'making an effort', not 'passing'. Those who make an effort but do not pass can still be objectively observed to have made an effort. Defining transness based on making an effort to present in the role of the opposite biological sex is literally defining us by the choices we make, which should be a very 'progressive' thing. Therefore, there is no reason why it should be unacceptable to progressive activists, provided that we leave some room for compassionate exceptions for those who cannot transition immediately but still intend to transition as soon as they can.
I suspect the real reason why some 'progressive' activists oppose the 'making an effort' requirement is because of their commitment to the anti-essentialist aspects of postmodernism, radical feminism and/or queer theory. While I agree that essentialism is problematic in many ways, taking anti-essentialism to the extreme is not the answer either. As I said before, I believe that seeing 'men' and 'women' as biologically based archetypes with common social meaning is most consistent with historical practice, and is also the most practical way to use these words in our modern society. It also allows trans people to express their gender identity, simply by making an effort to present and live as closer to the archetype of the gender they identify as. An extremely anti-essentialist approach that opposes the existence of these archetypes would cruelly deny the opportunity for trans people to easily and effectively express their gender identity in society, and reduce trans identity to nothing but an intangible feeling. This is one of the reasons why I have long maintained that postmodern gender theory is fundamentally anti-trans.
Finally, there's the point that some trans women, including Mulder, feel that the lifelong consistent gender identity narrative doesn't apply to them. This, of course, doesn't invalidate the fact that this narrative actually describes the experience of many other trans women, including myself. Some trans women, like myself, have developed our gender identity since early childhood, but others appear to start out 'wanting to become women', and only develop their gender identity during their transition. I guess we need to acknowledge the diversity of the trans community, and the need to make it inclusive and respectful of our different experiences.
Trans People Are Not All The Same. Let's Face It.
I want to talk about the fact that not all trans people are the same, or even similar, in our experiences, and the way our gender identity developed. The denial of this fact, the reluctance to talk about it, has caused various unexpected consequences: non-trans people turning to the Blanchard typology to understand us, some trans people feeling excluded from the trans community, and some even finding refuge in anti-trans gender critical philosophy, to name a few. I know that some people think that unity is everything, and everything done in the name of unity is justified. But this artificial unity based on denying our differences clearly isn't working.
The trans community has its own historical problems with hierarchy, gatekeeping and exclusion. I guess this is why a taboo against talking about our differences developed. But now that trans issues have gone mainstream, it is unsustainable, because even the non-trans people out there can see that we are not all the same. The trans community's refusal to provide an account of our differences has led some people to seek out unsound theory like the Blanchard typology, because it at least tries to explain the vast differences seen among trans people. Quite a few people have actually told me that this is the exact reason they came to be interested in Blanchard's theory. It's bad news for the trans community, because if people are turning to the Blanchard typology, it would hinder them from developing a proper understanding of trans people and gender dysphoria. This is why, if we don't honestly explore the differences among trans people, others will do it for us, and it will be in a way that is unsound and unfair to trans people.
Another problem with the refusal to acknowledge differences is that a vague, one-size-fits-all narrative is all that is left, and many trans people themselves find it unsatisfactory to explain their condition. Many trans people, especially when they are done with the initial stages of transition, start searching everywhere for a satisfactory explanation of how their life has turned out, being unable to find it in the conformity of the trans community. I guess this is why some trans people end up embracing gender critical philosophy, despite its inherent anti-trans attitude. Some even end up being spokespeople for the gender critical movement. Trans activists like to label them as self-hating people who have betrayed the community. But could it be the truth instead, to say that the trans community failed them in the first place?
Another thing is, in my own experience, under the cover of the vague one-size-fits-all philosophy, the trans community is often more welcoming to some narratives than others. For example, the mainstream narrative of the trans community is skewed towards those who became aware of being trans after puberty or in young adulthood. This is the reason why 'egg culture' is a thing. To be honest, I don't understand 'egg culture' any more than cis people do. This is because I have felt trans for as long as I have known gender. In other words, I didn't have an 'egg' to 'crack' in the first place. Instead, the development of my gender identity was largely intertwined with my childhood experiences. For this reason, I've often felt like I've been sort of 'left out' of the trans community. The subtle exclusion of so-called 'early onset' trans people is basically intra-trans discrimination, and it needs to end. Without being able to talk about the differences between 'early onset' and 'later onset' gender dysphoria, we are unable to even speak about the existence of this exclusion, let alone change it.
Gender Dysphoria and the Trans Language Wars
I want to talk about a controversial topic: the trans-related language wars. Much has been said about this topic, however, I haven't seen anyone discuss this phenomenon from the perspective of gender dysphoria. As I've said before, it's important to put gender dysphoria back at the center of the trans discourse, and it's time we did so with the debate over so-called gender-inclusive language.
I think the relationship between gender dysphoria and gender-inclusive language is complicated at the moment. To begin, I think we should acknowledge that the new language was designed with the purpose of relieving gender dysphoria in the first place. Trans people have health care needs like everyone else, but information and care that is delivered using the normal terminology could trigger gender dysphoria in many trans people, which could then lead to avoidance of seeking proper health care, for example. Hence the invention of terms like 'people who menstruate' for trans men, so they can discuss health problems around the topic of menstruation without being called women, for example. Therefore, there is indeed a need for such terminology when delivering health care and services for trans people specifically.
The problem is that, in recent years, the new terminology has been applied in situations that are not specifically targeted at trans people, meaning that some non-trans people feel like they have been forced to use the new terminology without even being asked first. Moreover, when non-trans people object to the new terminology, they are sometimes accused of being 'transphobic' by activists. This has led to a feeling among some people that traditional terms like 'women', 'mother', and so on are being erased. This is now a major problem objectively, having become a political topic in countries like the UK and Australia. It is also an issue that has made many feminists skeptical of trans rights, unfortunately. Therefore, in regards to the move to extend the new terminology to the mainstream, given the backlash generated by this move, and the resultant harm to trans acceptance, from a gender dysphoria point of view, I believe the cons clearly outweigh the pros.
The extension of the new terminology into the mainstream has often been justified on grounds of being inclusive. However, how necessary is this move in being 'inclusive'? It's not as if trans people would find it offensive that a service designed for the mainstream, where 99% of users are not trans, would use mainstream language to describe things. Most trans people understand that we are a small minority, and would not expect the world to be designed around our specific needs. All we ask is for care and sensitivity to be applied when you are actually dealing with trans people.
On the other hand, applying the new language as the 'new standard' for everyone is more problematic than most activists would acknowledge. For example, a form that describes everyone who had given birth in their lives as a 'birthing parent', and allows the choice of 'mother' only as a subset of 'birthing parent', implies that 'mother' is only a subset of 'birthing parent', which challenges traditional notions of motherhood going back to the earliest civilizations. A form that uses 'mother' by default, but allows changes when used by trans men, would imply something very different, that motherhood is still a concept that stands alone, and is not part of some 'birthing parent' umbrella. As you can see, the approach of applying the new terminology to everyone is going to offend many more people. Given what we need is more understanding and acceptance of trans people, I don't see why we should adopt an approach that many people find offensive.
In conclusion, my view is that there is a place for the new gender-inclusive terminology. However, it would be best to limit its use to situations specific to trans people, for example when delivering care to a trans person, or in health services that specifically cater to the LGBT community. Forcibly applying the new terminology on non-trans people is seen as offensive by many people, and is going to hurt trans acceptance and understanding. The cons clearly outweigh the pros, if the objective is to help trans people living with gender dysphoria.