On Trans Issues, Everyone Needs to Stop Preaching to the Converted
We need to be brave enough to speak the truth, even if it's unpopular
One thing that troubles me about the current state of the trans discourse is that everyone seems to be preaching to the converted. It is happening in pro-trans circles, gender critical circles and right-wing trans skeptic circles alike. Everyone seems to be about pleasing their own fellow travelers, making ever more extreme and distorted arguments in an attempt to gain popularity. I guess the unhealthy structure of social media has contributed strongly to this trend. However, we should be aware of it, and resist it as much as possible, because it is hampering us from getting to real understanding of the objective truth.
I have long been trying to convince my fellow trans people that they should listen to good faith concerns coming from the other side. I believe that, if we don't deal with these concerns seriously and thoroughly, there will be no way out of the current stalemate. Anti-trans forces, often rooted in religious fundamentalism, could then try to muddy the debate by creating moral panic after moral panic about the unresolved issues, which will erode trans acceptance over time. Therefore, for the sake of trans people's welfare, we need to deal with others' concerns in good faith. Cancel culture will get us nowhere. Yet, more than five years since I started speaking up, things are not getting any better. Extreme activists still try to cancel anyone who disagrees with them, including trans people with supposedly 'transmedicalist' views. For extreme trans activists, 'transmedicalism' is their favorite excuse for silencing their fellow trans people who want to come up with productive solutions. If a solution for compromise comes from non-trans people, they tend to reflexively label it 'transphobic' even if it's not. Cancel culture functions to keep trans people in line, so they don't speak up against the activist line, even if it is losing us support. This really must change.
On the other hand, trans skeptical circles are no better than trans activist circles when it comes to listening to dissenting voices. To put it bluntly, too many people don't really take the concerns of those with gender dysphoria seriously. They are too easily dismissive of trans people's fears that their medical treatment could be restricted. Evidence that consenting adults now find it difficult to access treatment in some places are often dismissed, by those saying that right-wing policies are only about 'protecting the kids'. As I often say, if they truly want to protect the kids, they should support professionally developed guidelines like the one they have in Sweden, rather than turning the whole issue into a political football. Conspiracy theories suggesting that there is a whole profit making industry out to encourage people to medically transition, which is fundamentally unsound by the logic of common sense, further muddy the waters, and lend unjustified credence to bad policy. The politicized, tribalist culture war approach has led to unsound policy with harmful consequences on real life trans people, and the culture warriors won't even acknowledge what is happening. This attitude, in turn, leads to even more trans people getting frustrated enough to be radicalized to the hardline trans activist side.
The two sides of the trans culture war coin keep reinforcing each other in an endless circle. The only way to break this vicious cycle is for those of us in the middle to truly listen to what people on all sides are saying, in good faith. If you prioritize your own comfort or popularity above the truth, then you're part of the problem, no matter which side you're on. We really need to resist the temptation to fit in and gain popularity within our own circles.
Cancel Culture is Not a Real Thing: Applying the RIDE Method
A systematic assessment of this claim
This is the second part of my attempt to use the RIDE method to examine the issue of cancel culture. Last time I applied the RIDE method to examine the argument that cancel culture is real, and that it poses a genuine threat to free speech.
This time, I will use the RIDE method to examine the opposite argument: that cancel culture is not a real problem, that people aren't truly being cancelled, and they are only being held accountable.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: FAIL. Those skeptical of cancel culture have often tried to paint free speech activists calling out cancel culture as having a political agenda, usually coded as right-wing. However, in reality, those opposing cancel culture come from across the political spectrum, and there is no clear association with any one type of political stance, notwithstanding some dishonest people with their own political agendas trying (unsuccessfully) to hijack the movement. The fact that many supporters of BLM called out cancel culture, leading to an intra-BLM split on the issue back in 2020, provides strong evidence that concern about cancel culture is not a right-wing thing. Yet some cancel culture skeptics still pretend those concerned about cancel culture are all serving a right-wing political agenda. This is very dishonest, and by definition neither rational nor reasonable.
I for Independent Thinking: FAIL. The view that cancel culture is not a real thing and people are just being held accountable is reflexively chanted by cancel culture skeptics every time there are accusations of cancel culture. Even worse, the concerns of free speech activists are sometimes mocked, with the substance of those concerns almost never dealt with in good faith. There is also no attempt to analyze the specific circumstances of each case of alleged cancellation, to see whether there is indeed injustice being done in at least some cases. Nor do the cancel culture skeptics appear to be open to persuasion that their view is wrong. All this, in my view, points to a tribalist approach fueling a lot of the skepticism about the existence of cancel culture. It appears likely that cancel culture denial has been taken up as an article of faith and/or a culture war position by certain people, rather than individuals arriving at this conclusion as a result of independent thinking.
D for Defending Freedom: MASSIVE FAIL. In raising concerns about cancel culture, free speech activists are calling attention to a potential threat to long-standing freedoms generations of people have taken for granted. However, cancel culture skeptics and denialists just wave the issue away, without even bothering to examine whether a threat to free speech really exists or not. This attitude alone would merit a fail for this question. More concerningly, some have even said things like to be on the 'left' these days you have to accept that they are not as committed to free speech, or even that free speech is not an important priority for society. The existence of this kind of sentiment among cancel culture denialists justifies the 'massive fail' grade.
E for Evidence: MIXED. Free speech activists have been able to point out new phenomenon like de-platforming that only became mainstream in the past decade, which they call 'cancel culture'. While there might be arguments about whether this is the best label or not, there is no denying that this phenomenon exists and it represents something new. Nobody has been able to convincingly argue otherwise. However, those who doubt the existence of cancel culture do make a valid point about the fact that in the age of the internet and social media, people are not truly cancelled. But even here, there is not enough good faith consideration of all the facts. For example, while major public figures usually can't be literally cancelled, smaller content creators can be made to suffer a proportionally large loss of audience and/or income, which would effectively amount to cancellation. Moreover, even those who are not literally cancelled might still suffer social consequences like loss of opportunities and income, that might deter others with similar views from speaking up. This would be enough to distort the marketplace of ideas, which is the central concern of the free speech activists. There is also clear evidence that people have been subjected to de-platforming tactics for unpopular opinions rather than for objectively agreed wrongdoing, which invalidates the argument that people are just being held accountable for their actions.
Conclusions
Overall, it appears that while free speech activists have adequately proven that cancel culture exists and poses a problem for free speech and the marketplace of ideas, cancel culture skeptics have not dealt with the substance of the issue at all. Their response is irrational, tribalist, culture war-style rhetoric that ultimately accuses the free speech activists of having a right-wing agenda, even when they clearly support things like BLM. By turning the whole thing into a culture war fight, cancel culture denialists are able to avoid dealing with the substance of the issue. Likewise, with their superficially correct statement that people aren't truly cancelled in the age of the internet, they avoid dealing with the effects of social punishment in silencing certain ideas. Their avoidance and dishonesty leaves their case with very little credibility, in my view. On the other hand, those calling out cancel culture must be truly committed to free speech, and equally opposed to threats against free speech coming from the left and the right, to maintain integrity and credibility. For example, those who are sympathetic to the 'postliberal' right position of using state power to wage the culture wars should not find themselves welcome in a genuine free speech movement.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
You can also read and follow TaraElla's second substack, focused on political philosophy, here.