The Trans Discourse is Missing Compassion
Too many people want their views to prevail at the expense of real lives
Over the past 3-5 years, I've been talking a lot about what has gone wrong with the trans discourse. While trans activists who won't compromise, postmodernists who keep using trans people to argue that gender is a social construct, extreme gender critical activists who are opposed to any recognition of trans people at all, and right-wing culture warriors who want to defeat trans rights to 'own the libs' are all major problems, they essentially represent variations of the same theme: people missing compassion. Specifically, people who hold other goals, i.e. the triumph of their philosophical worldview, as more important than real lives in the real world. And that is a basically immoral position.
If only people would treat real lives in the real world as worthy of compassion, rather than as pawns in an abstract philosophical battle, then the aforementioned extreme positions wouldn't even exist. Non-trans people would not want to 'eradicate transgenderism from public life', if they were only a bit more decent and compassionate. Likewise, trans people would be willing to listen to genuine, good faith concerns and criticism regarding trans activism, because they would also have more compassion for the concerned parties. The culture wars are making people mistrust each other, see each other in the most negative way, and ultimately lack compassion for each other. That is perhaps the real problem here.
Therefore, next time you look at trans controversies, or indeed any kind of controversy, perhaps it is useful to look at it from the compassion angle. It is definitely a refreshing way to see things. Perhaps the compassion angle can even help break some long-standing stalemates.
Welcome back to my RIDE method series, where I will attempt to systematically apply the RIDE method to various cultural and political controversies, in order to bring back calm, rational and evidence-based discourse.
This time, I want to use the RIDE method to examine the two extreme positions on the new linguistic norms activists call 'trans inclusive language'.
In this first part, I will be applying the RIDE method to the argument that the new linguistic norms should apply to society across the board, even in contexts where LGBT people are not the majority or the focus. In the second part, I will be examining the moral panic over the new linguistic norms, as well as the practice of using a trans person's preferred pronouns.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: FAIL. The movement for the use of trans inclusive language has defaulted to accusations of transphobia for basically every instance where people have questioned or opposed the use of such language. Prominent examples include the 2019 cancellation of left-wing trans YouTuber ContraPoints (for questioning the utility of pronoun rounds), the 2022 drama around the Australian government reverting to the use of 'mother' on its forms, and the 2023 drama around comments made by The Young Turks host Ana Kasparian. The fact that all three aforementioned instances targeted left-leaning, pro-LGBT people demonstrates that this is not really about transphobia. Instead, it appears to be about enforcing the new language as a standard among pro-LGBT organizations, which even many LGBT allies don't necessary think is a good idea.
I for Independent Thinking: FAIL. The kneejerk accusations of transphobia have led to a reluctance to discuss the issue within the LGBT community. There is no serious discussion about the utility of using the new language in different contexts. Speaking up on this topic in the LGBT community comes with risk of social punishment, which means most people just pay lip service in support, and don't say what they truly think.
D for Defending Freedom: FAIL. The kneejerk accusations of transphobia, and the accompanying attempts at cancellation that often follow, have a chilling effect on free speech.
E for Evidence: MIXED. It is likely that the new, trans inclusive language could be of benefit in certain contexts, for example when providing health care to trans people. However, its general application across the board has led to inconvenience, frustration and anger among the general population, contributing to the backlash against the LGBT community. Therefore, the application of the new language outside the LGBT community is likely to be inappropriate. What we need is to have a serious discussion about where this language could be justifiably used, based on real world evidence. Right now, this discussion is not happening, because of the aforementioned situation.
This time, I will be visiting the other extreme of the spectrum. I will use the RIDE method to examine the moral panic over the new linguistic norms, including the practice of using a trans person's preferred pronouns.
R for being Rational and Reasonable: FAIL. While it might be reasonable to point out that the general application of the new, trans inclusive language across the board is not justified, the moral panic being raised in some circles about this issue is neither rational nor reasonable. For example, some people, including Twitter boss Elon Musk, have said that 'cis' is a slur, when it is clearly not. While I personally avoid using that word because of its controversial connotations, it still doesn't make it a slur, objectively speaking. Applying equal and objective standards, if 'cis' is a slur, then so is 'trans', 'straight' and 'gay', which clearly doesn't make sense. Furthermore, some people are now portraying the refusal to use a trans person's preferred pronouns as an act of heroism, as if it were about resisting postmodern queer theory or the 'delusions' of trans people (which, as I previously explained, is a strawman). In reality, using a trans person's preferred pronouns is an act of accommodation, out of compassion towards those suffering from gender dysphoria. While nobody should be compelled to say anything they don't believe in, to accuse those who are willing to use preferred pronouns of supporting queer theory or 'delusions' is a dishonest culture war smear tactic.
I for Independent Thinking: FAIL. Culture warriors have sought to turn the whole issue into one of us-vs-them culture war tribalism, rather than one of free speech and reasonable concerns. This, in turn, puts peer pressure on people to conform to the views of their tribe. As I often say, the West is polarized enough as it is, we certainly don't need another marker to separate the left-tribe from the right-tribe. Every additional such marker makes communication and bridge building even less likely. A society where everyone on Team Blue used preferred pronouns and trans inclusive language and everyone on Team Red does not is a terrible outcome, because people won't even be able to communicate normally anymore.
D for Defending Freedom: MIXED. Defending free speech is justified. Hence, if concerns about trans inclusive language were only about defending the right to say what one believes, it would be completely justified. When Jordan Peterson made his point about 'compelled speech' several years ago, I said I agreed, to the disappointment of some of my LGBT friends, and I still stand by that. However, more recently, the right has been actively trying to force people into not using trans people's preferred pronouns. This has mainly come in the form of peer pressure. However, sometimes it has been formalized into policy and even legislation, especially in the setting of schools. While I do concede that state governments have a right to regulate public schools in their jurisdiction, this approach has been condemned as being too rigid and intrusive on the everyday functioning of schools and teaching, even by conservatives. Also, given the ever-expanding approach of the right-wing culture warriors, I worry that such policy and legislation would be extended to other areas of life, which would represent an intrusion on the free speech of adult citizens.
E for Evidence: FAIL. The culture warriors responsible for the moral panic around preferred pronouns and trans inclusive language have largely failed to provide evidence that, outside of free speech concerns, it represents a real threat to the social fabric as they make it out to be. For example, using a trans person's preferred pronouns will not automatically cause acceptance of queer theory or the inability to consider biological sex in various social settings, rationally speaking. This kind of extreme hyperbole sounds like how, twenty years ago, the same kind of people argued that gay marriage would lead to a collapse in family values, and churches being forced to host gay weddings, neither of which have come true. Just like those pushing for full adoption of new language norms on the left, full resisters on the right seem to be refusing to have an actually evidence-based discussion. Instead, both sides continue to rely on riling up people's emotions to make unjustified arguments sound better to their fellow travelers.
Conclusions
Both the activists pushing for society-wide adoption of new, trans inclusive language norms, and the culture warriors pushing a moral panic over every linguistic accommodation of trans people, fail the RIDE test badly. Both extremes want to engage in an emotionally charged, tribalist culture war, and show no interest in having a rational, evidence-based discussion. As usual, the extremists on both sides are disappointing, and it is up to those of us in the middle to find a rational middle path for society to move forward on.
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.
Basically, people should have the same freedom to change gender if they really want it or to be transgender if they are transgender.