Author: Carrie

  • A century of “contagion”

    I’ve written many times about the entirely fictional phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” which, despite not existing, is being used by right-wing politicians to justify their hateful assaults on trans healthcare as well as by UK culture warriors online and in newspaper columns and comments sections. This, in Scientific American, is yet more evidence that there’s no evidence.

    If ROGD is new to you, the short version is that it’s pseudoscience based solely on interviews with furious anti-trans bigots whose children don’t speak to them any more. And the longer version is that it’s the same old shit that bigots have been churning out for nearly a century now.

    Like most anti-trans bullshit, ROGD is a rebranded version of anti-gay bullshit: the belief that gay people were turned gay by “social contagion”. That’s a confection by the religious right, who want you to believe that being gay is not natural, not normal and not innate; it’s a deliberate choice, an immoral, unhealthy and freely chosen sin.

    They’ve been banging on like that for nearly a hundred years now. As this paper by Nancy J Knauer notes, the outcry over the 1928 novel The Well Of Loneliness, aka The Well, in which a lesbian character’s sexuality was “depicted as an innate, God-given and potentially noble characteristic” was greeted with “a hostile counter-narrative of homosexuality as contagion, resulting in sensational obscenity trials on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.”

    Those trials even enshrined the idea of social contagion in law:

    Courts in New York and London adjudged The Well obscene under the prevailing “Hicklin rule,” finding that it had the tendency “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort might fall.”‘” Although the New York decision was overturned on appeal, The Well remained banned in Great Britain until 1949.

    As Knauer notes:

    The arguments used to suppress The Well are strikingly similar to those used today to silence positive images of same-sex desire, relationships, and identities in a wide variety of contexts including education, public employment, and 6 government-funded programs.

    The outcry over The Well established the six principles of the “contagion” argument. See how many you recognise from the anti-trans movement:

    1. Being gay is a freely chosen vice, not a medical or scientific category; nobody was “born this way”;
    2. Gays prey on innocent victims, particularly children;
    3. Gays have no shame and insist on flaunting their sexuality in public, infringing on the rights of others;
    4. Gays demand special rights, not just tolerance;
    5. This is a battle for the future of society, a war between good and evil (with gay people as evil, of course);
    6. Because homosexuality is so contagious, especially for children, any public image of homosexuality that is not negative or the presence of an openly gay person such as a teacher could transmit the contagion and therefore must be forbidden.

    Every time you read about rapid onset gender dysphoria you’re reading 100-year-old bullshit reported by people who either don’t know history or do know and simply don’t care.

  • The trick is to keep peeling

    It’s nearly six years since I started transitioning, and my relationship to my body has changed quite significantly since I began. As I wrote in my book, I never had the severe body dysphoria that many trans people experience, the discomfort, unhappiness or even horror that comes from your body and mind not matching up. But over time, I’ve found that those feelings have grown.

    On the face of it, that seems odd. After all, I’m six years further down the HRT road now so my biochemistry is better. I’ve had over 230 hours of facial electrolysis. So I’m closer to where I need to be than I was back then. But I don’t feel that way.

    It turns out that I’m not the only transitioning person who feels like that. Writing in Stained Glass Woman, Doc Impossible has some thoughts, and while I’m not sure I agree with all of them I think it’s an interesting piece.

    To summarise it: think of gender dysphoria as pain.

    Pain isn’t a constant. I’ve been getting facial electrolysis for four years now and last week’s session was one of the most painful ones I’ve ever had. It was the same technician, the same machine, the same needle size and strength. If anything it should be a walk in the park by now because the really thick hairs, the one that felt like they needed the entire National Grid to electro-shock, are long gone. But my pain threshold was different that day, possibly because I’ve been going through some things and not looking after myself as well as I should have been. So the needles really hurt – and things I normally would barely have noticed were very noticeable and very painful. It was absolutely excruciating.

    What if dysphoria works like that too? As I’ve written in my book, sometimes I ask myself: how strong do I feel today? Some days I’m stronger than others, and things bounce off that would normally hurt. And of course the reverse applies too. If your threshold for physical pain can vary, then surely the same applies to your threshold for psychic pain.

    What about the phenomenon I’ve experienced, of increasing dysphoria as I transition? In Doc Impossible’s piece they suggest that perhaps dysphoria is like an onion, with multiple layers – so if you address one of the issues that makes you dysphoric, you remove a layer. And that’s good, but what’s underneath it? Another layer, one that you might not have been aware of because you were focused on the layer now gone. And now you have a new, completely exposed layer to deal with.

    those sources of constant, moment-by-moment pain? They’re either gone or dramatically reduced.

    Which means that your brain can stop shutting off lesser, but still significant, sources of pain.

    When we start noticing “new” dysphorias, the truth is that they were always there.

    I think that’s a really interesting way to look at it, because I do think there’s more to it than just frustration: of course after 230 hours of electrolysis I’m pissed off with my weekly face stabbing, and the whingeing part of me thinks it’s very unfair that other trans women can achieve full clearance in a fraction of the time, and for a fraction of the money, than it’s taking me. But while there’s definitely an element of flagging after the halfway or three-quarters point, I think there’s also an element of onion peeling here. I’m unhappy about different things than I was six years ago, because there were bigger things I had to deal with first.

    The trick, it seems, is to keep peeling.

  • Bottom of the barrel

    Queen graphic from the Yoto music player website

    Following in the ridiculous footsteps of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, The Spectator is the latest publication to get in on the manufactured outrage over the supposed censorship of Queen’s Fat Bottomed Girls. According to the article by noted thought leader Richard Madeley, what we’re seeing is “neopuritanical cultural censorship”.

    For the benefit of people whose mouths don’t move when they read, the background to this story is that Queen licensed its music to Yoto, a music player for toddlers. Yoto makes its target audience very clear: it describes itself as “Yoto, the screen-free music player for children”. And Yoto has decided not to include the song, which is quite clearly about having sex with fat women, in its child-friendly version of Queen’s music. I imagine it probably wouldn’t include NWA’s Fuck Tha Police, Cardi B’s WAP or The Sex Pistols’ Belsen Was A Gas either.

    As much as I like to imagine Richard Madeley playing the entirety of Flux of Pink Indians’ The Fucking Cunts Treat Us Like Pricks to soundtrack a four-year-old’s birthday party, I don’t believe for a moment that he doesn’t think there are some forms of media that are not appropriate for children – and I’m pretty sure that if Fat Bottomed Girls were Fat Bottomed Boys, he’d be leading the charge to ban it for adults and children alike.

    I honestly don’t know whether these outrage farmers really believe the shit that they write and publish, but it doesn’t really matter: it’s just more grist to the grievance mill, a machine powered by bullshit whose only product is spluttering bile and whose job is to make its solipsistic readers red-faced with rage.

  • Words as weapons

    A new study from Germany adds more evidence that violent online speech leads to violent attacks in the streets. The Economist:

    A paper by Karsten Müller and Carlo Schwarz of the University of Warwick finds a strong association between right-wing, anti-refugee sentiment on German social-media sites and violent crimes against refugees.

    For every four anti-refugee posts on Facebook, there was one additional anti-refugee incident. According to the Economist, “This relationship appears to be driven by violent crimes such as arson and assault, and cannot be explained by local social-media usage or demography.”

    Correlation is not causation, I know. But we’re well aware of the power of propaganda and its association with violence. So it’s hardly surprising that the same connection is apparent in other forms of hateful speech. For example, if you plot the number of anti-trans articles in the UK press and the number of anti-trans hate crimes reported to the police in the same period, the curves are strikingly similar.

    This, by Joshua Foust back in 2019, is very relevant today.

    While I do think we still don’t understand the precise mechanism by which someone shifts from believing abhorrent ideas to acting on them, there is copious research demonstrating that abhorrent beliefs do lead to increases in ethnic violence. If a belief system is encouraging of violence and dehumanization then it has to be considered alongside the violent actors who say it inspires them.

    Foust begins by writing about Anders Breivik, whose manifesto famously referenced Daily Mail writer Melanie Phillips multiple times, but expands his article more widely:

    I think we need to take a few moments to understand how, as the debate over hate speech is manipulated in profoundly bad faith by right wing public intellectuals, the proliferation of hate speech is having a measurably bad effect on us as a society. And, realizing that, I’ll also discuss why placing faith in internet companies to fix the problem absolves everyone else of the need to act… we have to take responsibility for the sort of language we will tolerate, whether online or in more traditional media.

  • Red flags

    On Friday, 27-year-old Travis Ikeguchi murdered a 66-year-old mother of nine, Lauri Carleton, because he took exception to her shop’s Pride flag. According to US police he tore down the flag and hurled homophobic slurs before killing her in cold blood.

    Ikeguchi’s social media is still available to view, and it’s interesting to see how much he has in common with the leading lights of the UK anti-trans movement: he’s clearly a big fan of self-proclaimed theocratic fascist Matt Walsh, who JK Rowling recently praised on Twitter, and some of his posts share the same inflammatory rhetoric as the “groomer” posts by everybody’s favourite failed comedy writer. “We need to STOP COMPROMISING on this LGBT dictatorship” is fairly typical.

    Travis Ikeguchi's pinned Tweet from June 2023 showing a pride flag burning and describing it as the LGBTQP flag
    Travis Ikeguchi’s pinned Tweet from June 2023

    What’s also clear is that this killer was radicalised online, and that social networks didn’t do anything to stop it. On Twitter, Ikeguchi posted an image of a burning Pride flag with the caption “What do to with the LGBTQP flag?”. The addition of the letter P to denote paedophiles is a right-wing slur like the “groomer” slur, and burning or defaced Pride flags are a trademark of the “anti-woke” and so-called gender critical movements. When @medic_russell reported Ikeguchi’s post as hate speech, Twitter told him that “there were no violations of the Twitter rules in the content you reported”.

    That’s not a surprise. Travis Ikeguchi’s anti-Pride rhetoric is not significantly different from the anti-Pride rhetoric espoused by respected members of the so-called gender critical movement, so for example on his Twitter feed he reposted Jordan Peterson, who was sharing a baseless Daily Telegraph article about schoolchildren identifying as cats. Twitter generally doesn’t have a problem with abusive rhetoric around the Pride flag: for example, a tweet implying that trans women are violent men, demanding the removal of the “TQ” from the Pride flag and captioned “GET YOUR SHIT OFF OUR FLAG” apparently didn’t break the rules and was proudly shared by JK Rowling, not previously believed to be a member of the community “OUR FLAG” belongs to.

    Similarly when Helen Joyce posed with a pride flag from which the arrows representing trans people and people of colour had been cut out and trodden upon, Twitter didn’t think that was against the rules either. When minor actor turned anti-woke arse Lawrence Fox burned Pride flags in his back garden, flags he called “child mutilation bunting” before adding that “[Pride] isn’t pride. It’s just a celebration of the mutilation of children”, Twitter felt that was just fine. The post is still up.

    Anti-trans tweet reposted by JK Rowling in March 2023
    Author Helen Joyce poses proudly with a vandalised pride flag in 2022
    Photo shared by Helen Joyce on Twitter in 2022
    Actor turned culture war goon Laurence Fox burns pride flags in his back garden
    Laurence Fox on Twitter, June 2023

    Violent imagery and violent rhetoric begets violence. And while we don’t have the US gun culture that led in part to Lauri Carleton’s death, we do have the violent homophobia and transphobia that helped radicalise her murderer. And that leads to violence here too. Just last week two men were stabbed outside a London gay bar in what appears to be a hate crime; we’re awaiting the trial of the murderers of teenage trans girl Brianna Ghey, whose death also appears to be a hate crime. In March a gay man was beaten by a gang of youths in Bournemouth because he was holding hands with his husband;  in July a Birmingham estate agent was jailed for a similar attack in which he attacked a gay couple with a glass bottle and a metal pipe.

    There’s not a single day that passes where my news feed doesn’t contain stories of hate crimes perpetrated against members of the LGBTQ+ community, usually by straight men, usually because they have convinced themselves – or more likely, been convinced by others – that LGBTQ+ people are evil, perverted and dangerous. The people who push this rhetoric are not typically the ones who act on it. But they have blood on their hands just the same.

  • “Oh, you know the ones…”

    Graham Linehan, the comedy writer who sacrificed his marriage and his career so he could hurl abuse at trans people and their allies on the internet all day, has been all over the press in recent days. But the only piece worth reading is this one, by Caitlin Logan in The National.

    Some of the explanations for the ­cancellation offered in mainstream news publications include: “concern about Mr Linehan’s views on transgender issues”; his “views on sex and gender”; and his “gender critical beliefs”. This just in: wolf banned from cottage for “Little Red ­Riding Hood critical beliefs”.

    I’m reminded of Andrew Lawrence’s joke about the conservative who claims they’ve been cancelled for their “conservative views”.

    Con: I have been censored for my conservative views!
    Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
    Con: LOL no… no, not those views
    Me: So… deregulation?
    Con: Haha! No, not those views either
    Me: So, which views, exactly?
    Con: Oh, you know the ones

  • A rook-y mistake

    I thought the panic about trans women in sport had reached its nadir when they banned us from badminton, but I was wrong: this week, trans women were banned from the famously physical endurance sport of… chess.

    I’m not making this up.

    The reason elite international chess has some gendered categories is for positive discrimination; there’s a huge drop-off of girl chess players around the age of 13, and there’s a lot of evidence that where boys are steered towards the game, girls are steered away from it. It’s not a biological issue but a social one. The gendered categories are designed to boost inclusion of people who are not cisgender men, which of course is a category that should include trans women.

    It’s interesting to note that while yet again there are no actual cases of trans women being a problem in this sport, there are currently multiple allegations against straight cisgender male chess players, including grand masters, with credible claims detailing misogyny, sexism and sexual assault of women players.

    What’s particularly galling about this is that the self-proclaimed “feminists” who support trans exclusion are all over this with claims that yes, trans women should be excluded, not because of physical strength this time but because of course, women’s brains are inferior to men’s. If you’re born in a female body you get a little lady brain, they argue, and that means you need your own special lady-brain category in chess so that the big strong clever men don’t win with their big science brains and make you go boo-hoo.

    I despair, but the little bit of me that’s still optimistic hopes that this will finally make people appreciate the bigotry behind trans sporting bans: the science has not changed but there has been a seemingly daily parade of sports lining up to ban trans women. That’s particularly true in England, which seems second only to Russia in its race to exclude trans women from everything. It does make you wonder what conversations are going on behind the scenes between the sporting bodies and Sport England, the government agency that funds so many of them.

    Update, 21 August:

    Some interesting developments here: the English, German, French and US chess governing bodies have rejected the policy set out by FIDE, the International Chess Federation; the German Chess Federation (FSB) issued a strongly worded statement making it clear that they believe the policy is discriminatory, probably illegal and utterly unwelcome.

    The president of FIDE is Arkady Dvorkovich, former deputy prime minister of Russia and a friend of Vladimir Putin. This isn’t the first time he’s been accused of using FIDE to advance Putin’s political aims; earlier this year the European Chess Union’s vice-president accused FIDE of running a “soft power game” that was being “directed by the Kremlin”.

    It’s clear that FIDE is at odds with most national chess governing bodies. And that makes the so-called feminists loudly supporting its policy look even more repellent as they stand proudly against chess players and with Vladimir Putin. But then, there’s a precedent here: in 2022, Putin praised JK Rowling and claimed that Russia was a victim of cancel culture. So he’d fit right in at a UK anti-trans event.

  • Tory in “lying” shocker

    I’m trying not to pay too much attention to the Tories’ culture war bullshit, of which a thinly disguised bathroom ban appears to be the current unlawful idea, but it’s always worth pointing out when ministers tell very obvious lies in support of their bigotry. Like this one, written in yesterday’s Telegraph by equalities minister and Satan’s little helper Kemi Badenoch:

    A decade ago, there was no need to clarify who could use which toilet.

    That’s a lie, and Badenoch knows it. The Equality Act was passed without alarm 13 years ago and clarifies exactly that. And the supposed woke push for gender-neutral toilets in schools that she rails against in the article was actively encouraged by, er, the Conservative government back in 2007 via the Department for Education. Here’s a BBC article about it.

    Here’s a more correct version of Badenoch’s line:

    A decade ago, far-right politicians and the press weren’t waging a war on trans women.

  • “We’ve been TERFing and it’s so much fun”

    In my book, I write briefly about a significant subset of the anti-gender movement: the “bored straight white women who spend too much time on social media and have taken up bullying as a hobby, claiming to be ‘the granddaughters of the witches you couldn’t burn’ and trying to incite stochastic terrorism against inconvenient women like me.”

    There was a good example of just that on social media over the weekend, as two bored and presumably straight white women shared a video of their excitement over their two-person protest outside an English Costa Coffee shop. Costa is the current boycott target of the UK bigot brigade because at a Pride event over a year ago, it hired a trans artist to paint an inclusive picture that featured a trans man. To bigots, this is a bat signal.

    What’s notable about the video isn’t the hypocrisy of people who claim “TERF is a slur” happily saying they’ve been “out TERFing”, although that’s there. It’s the visible joy. There’s no pretence of “reasonable concerns” here, no desire to protect anyone from anything. It’s that to these women, being visibly and vocally hateful towards a minority is like a trip to the garden centre: a fun thing to do at the weekend; a jolly good day out.

  • To know me is to love me

    One of the things I write about in my book is that transphobia largely relies on people not knowing, or not thinking they know, any trans people. I make a very good joke about it that you’ll need to buy the book to read. And the same point is made in this report from LGBT Nation, which talks about polling that demonstrates intergroup contact theory. The short version is that if you know trans people, you’re much more likely to oppose hateful anti-trans legislation.

    This is why they want to ban books about or by us, and why they want to erase us from public life. Because as the cliché goes, to know us is to love us.

    Transphobia is classic fascism: we are the out-group against whom the in-group is mobilised, the outsiders the insiders are told to hate and fear. And to maintain that, you need to maintain the fiction that we are a dangerous, sinister “other”. Knowing us, hearing our stories, seeing us do ordinary things… that’s something to be prevented at all costs.

    This week’s right-wing shitefest (or at least, the loudest one so far; I’m writing this on Tuesday) is over the inclusion of Hari Nef (above), a very beautiful trans actress, in the Barbie movie. Her transness isn’t referenced in the movie at all, and there’s no indication as to whether her character – which, it’s important to note, is a plastic doll – is cis or trans. These giant babies are throwing tantrums purely because a trans woman has a job.

    It’s very telling that in the photos many of these ludicrous attention-seeking bigots are sharing in their outrage, they frequently point to a completely different, cisgender, actress as they cry “we can always tell!” So far I’ve seen almost all of the film’s cast identified as trans women or trans men, including the very famous and very cisgender actors Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling.