Author: Carrie

  • Fighting talk

    Thomas Page McBee on the cover of The Observer magazine

    Crossing gender lines is interesting. On the one hand you suddenly need to learn and live by rules and roles that other people have known their whole lives; on the other, you have to unpick and unlearn the rules and roles you internalised before your transition. Depending on your direction of travel you will either lose some of the privilege you’ve been accustomed to or gain privilege you previously didn’t have.

    I think that’s particularly interesting because when you’re coming to this from the other team you’re seeing things fresh that other people may not. For example, trans men may be more keenly aware of, and questioning of, their masculinity than cisgender men.

    Thomas Page McBee, a trans man, is a fascinating and wise writer whose books try to make sense of some of this. His memoir Man Alive is a gripping, insightful and sometimes harrowing document of his transition, and his second book, Amateur, is something else entirely.

    It’s about how McBee became the first trans man to box in Madison Square Garden.

    Boxing turns my stomach. At school I pretended otherwise as a fitting-in strategy: football was far too complicated for me to fake an interest in it, but I could bullshit my way through a conversation about who the greatest boxer would be (not least because back then, the only possible answer was Muhammad Ali). That would restore my man-credentials for a while.

    Boxing’s a man thing, because violence is a man thing.

    Isn’t it?

    McBee’s book is an attempt to answer that, and it doesn’t go where you might expect. Here’s The Guardian in a profile of McBee from a few years ago:

    It takes much of the book for McBee to comprehend the enigma of the boxing ring, where men are comfortable hugging, or swatting each other on the ass, showing affection. “With its cover of ‘realness’ and violence, it provides room for what so many men lack: tenderness and touch, and vulnerability,” McBee writes. It’s not violence that lies at the root of masculinity, he concludes – it’s shame.

    It’s a very different book from Norman Mailer’s The Fight, that’s for sure.

    Amateur‘s a really fascinating read. It’s not sports writing, although the fight is rendered in painful detail. It’s about identity and belonging and trying to work out not just who you are, but who you want to be.

  • Taylor Swift is trans

    According to some people on the internet, that is.

    Owl Stefania in Metro:

    On this occasion, the conversation that caught my eye involved discussions and videos about celebrities who are allegedly ‘secretly transgender’.

    This included names like Taylor Swift, Meghan Markle, Holly Willoughby, Jodie Whittaker, David and Victoria Beckham, Keira Knightley, and all of Prince Harry’s ex-girlfriends.

    The site in question is a UK one, or it would also have included Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey and pretty much any other Black female celebrity or athlete too. I saw a post today that roped in Marilyn Monroe because she clearly had a “male spine”.

    The people posting this shite are the same people who want to police who can and can’t use public toilets.

  • “So much ignorance”

    When people scaremonger about proposed legislation, it’s a safe bet that they are ignorant of the existing legislation and of similar legislation in other countries: if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be scaremongering.

    The manufactured controversy over Scotland’s proposed hate crime legislation – a controversy largely fuelled by religious groups and the right-wing press – appears to fit the pattern. It’s focused on the offences of “stirring up hatred”, which we’re told will be the end of civilisation as we know it.

    Here’s lecturer and commentator Andrew Tickell, who knows a thing or two about the law.

    The debate on Holyrood’s Hate Crime Bill is eminently necessary and important – but by gum, it is already characterised by so much ignorance about (a) what the law already is and (b) often misplaced hysteria about what the law will be if this Bill is passed.

    For one thing, for the various unionists going crackers, it is probably important to know that the headline offences of stirring up hatred on the grounds of race, religion and sexual orientation are already criminal offences in England and Wales under the Public Order Act 1986.

    That’s the thing about bringing legislation in line with other countries: when people tell us the sky will fall in, we can see if identical legislation caused the sky to fall in elsewhere.

  • “Inappropriate enthusiasm is pretty much baked into my core personality”

    I’ve been reading Heather Havrilesky’s writing online pretty much since I first went online. This, on friendship in a time of Covid, is superb.

    In the past, whenever I met someone I liked a lot and admired, I was often too fearful to stick my neck out and assert my interest in becoming friends. I was sometimes paranoid about looking desperate or nerdy. I was worried I might seem too pushy or clingy or inappropriately enthusiastic, even though inappropriate enthusiasm is pretty much baked into my core personality.

    Me too, Heather. Me too.

  • We cannot be what we cannot see

    If it wasn’t for the internet, I don’t think I’d ever have come out. Not because I was somehow talked into being trans; forced feminisation is something that only happens in niche pornography and in the lurid fantasies of anti-trans bigots. The internet helped me come out because it finally let me see that there were other people just like me.

    We cannot be what we cannot see.

    Which is why Allie Crewe’s You Brought Your Own Light is so good to see. It’s a collection of 26 photos of trans people; one of them, Grace, was last year’s Portrait of Britain award winner.

    Grace, by Allie Crewe

    I love these photographs. I love them because they’re great portraits, and because there’s a real power to them.

    Olivia, by Allie Crewe

    The endless photos I looked at before I came out, the photos I looked at as I started to consider hormonal transition, weren’t as good as these. But they were powerful too. Ordinary women, trans women, publicly documenting their transitions.

    I wrote this some time ago:

    I spent endless hours looking at trans women’s HRT transition timelines, the photographic evidence of the cumulative effects of hormone treatment and improving make-up skills. I actively searched for timelines of middle-aged trans women, trying to see what was the result of HRT and what was just better lighting, good makeup and a cute smile.

    Looking at such images wasn’t new, nor was the strong yearning I felt to be one of the people in the pictures. I’ve had those things since I’ve had internet access. But something was different now. I no longer saw the photos as pictures of transformations that, for me, would be impossible and unattainable.

    I started to see them as maps of the possible.

    What struck me wasn’t the physical transformation; it was the difference in the way they looked at the camera, the smiles reaching their eyes. Even relatively minor physical transformations looked spectacular because of the difference in the way people held themselves and looked at the camera.

    Each timeline was the same story: unhappy people finally becoming happy in their own skin.

    I wanted that too.

    I have that now. I took a photo the other night during some daft family fun and it struck me how different I looked. It wasn’t makeup or good lighting – my makeup was half-arsed and the light wasn’t flattering. I look different now. Happier.

    Nobody’s going to look at a timeline of me and go “wow! I never knew such beauty was possible!” But I do think that the more of us that people get to know, the more prejudices we’ll shatter.

    I’m reading a powerful and sad book just now, How To Survive A Plague by David France. It’s about the AIDS epidemic, and I’ll write about it a lot more when I’ve finished it. But in the pages describing the early years of the disease, the parallels between public attitudes to gay men then and to trans women now are really striking.

    As the book notes, at the beginning of the AIDS crisis some 80% of Americans said they didn’t know any gay people. They did, of course, but those people weren’t going to tell anybody they were gay: it was far too dangerous for their careers, for their social lives, for their safety. As a result it was easy for the press and religious groups to demonise gay men as perverts, predators, a danger to children. Which they did, endlessly and viciously. The way the media treated gay men during this period and for many years afterwards was despicable and undoubtedly cost lives.

    Today, 89% of Americans say they don’t know any trans people. As a result…

    Visibility and representation don’t just help us understand ourselves. They also help you understand us.

    When you have gay friends, colleagues and family members it’s hard to be homophobic. Likewise with trans people and transphobia.

    If you plot the change in social attitudes towards equal rights, equal marriage, same-sex adoption and similar issues over the years you’ll see that as more people come out, as more people get to know those people, attitudes change. Familiarity, understanding and empathy don’t leave much room for bigotry.

    The bigots will still wave their banners and push their malevolent fantasies. But fewer and fewer people will be buying what they’re selling.

  • Simple truth

    This, by author Mia Violet, is very true. It’s a shame that the first section should be in any way controversial: being trans is hard in a world that treats trans people so badly.

  • Beware instant experts

    Every now and again, someone on the internet will read a few articles about something, decide they’re an expert on the subject and start arguing with others. At its most entertaining, they pick fights with actual experts without realising who they’re talking to and get their arse handed to them on a plate.

    Sadly it’s not always funny. This is where the anti-vaccination, anti-mask and anti-5G conspiracy theories come from: they’re spread by people who believe that they have stumbled upon a Great Truth, a truth that of course They Don’t Want You To Know, and they surround themselves with people who celebrate rather than challenge their ignorance.

    The phenomenon isn’t limited to people with Twitter handles like BigDave23632111. It affects celebrities, journalists and other public figures too: there are few people more zealous, and in some cases dangerous, than the person with an audience who has become an instant expert with Things To Say.

    All too often, what they want to say is the same old shit.

    It happens so frequently with trans-related subjects that  Julia Serano, biologist and writer, wrote an article to save her having to plough through the same long-debunked bullshit again and again. She wrote it four years ago and it’s just as relevant now. 

    This is not an abstract debate.

    Other people’s vocal ignorance about trans people has a direct effect on trans people’s lives. For example, Janice Raymond, an ex-nun who argued that trans people should be “morally mandated out of existence” in the 1970s (a belief that’s sadly still common in so-called gender critical circles), was partly responsible for the removal of healthcare from trans people in the US.

    Much of the current wave of anti-trans activism is focused on restricting the healthcare and basic human rights of trans people, and some of it threatens violence against us. Just this morning I watched a video of a US demonstration, ostensibly about supporting the police, where the protesters switched chants from “all lives matter” to “kill transgenders”, a frightening echo of what’s commonplace in Eastern Europe and Russia.

    Here in the UK, it’s the fifth anniversary of the UK government’s Transgender Equality Inquiry. In those five years, the “debate” about trans people – a debate almost entirely conducted by cisgender people talking to other cisgender people about trans people – has ensured that not one of its recommendations has been implemented. Meanwhile the crisis in trans healthcare continues to worsen and hate crimes against trans people have increased considerably.

    Serano:

    as transgender people have become more visible and have garnered increasing media scrutiny, trans-unaware politicians, pundits, and journalists have suddenly swooped in to weigh in on these important issues — issues that (conveniently) they themselves are not personally invested in. Some of these people have very clear anti-trans agendas. Others are (perhaps well-meaning) interlopers who believe that by simply reading a few research papers and interviewing a few people here and there, they can acquire an “objective understanding” about this complex subject that spans a half-century of history. And sadly, they often center their op-eds and think-pieces on an especially vulnerable segment of our community: transgender children.

    As Serano points out, there is a common thread to much of this: the idea that somehow cisgender people can be “transed”: that is, turned transsexual, as if being transsexual is something we do for shits and giggles or decide on a whim.

    The decision to transition does not happen in a vacuum. It occurs in the presence of systemic societal transphobia. Every transgender person is highly aware of how pervasive this double standard is (as we face it every day). And every transsexual who transitions does so in spite of systemic transphobia. This is a testament to how intense gender dysphoria can be, or (to put it in less pathologizing language) how deeply rooted our gender identities are: We’d rather live with the stigma of transphobia than be forced to live in our birth-assigned gender.

    As Serano writes, there’s also a (sometimes deliberate) confusion between being transsexual and being transgender.

    Transgender is a big tent. It includes non-binary people, gender non-conforming people and transsexual people. The transsexual people are the ones who may undergo some form of social and/or medical transition. But often, articles and discussions about transgender people assume that all of them will undergo hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery. That simply isn’t true.

    Much of the “debate” around trans people is based on ignorance and on bad faith. As Serano describes it, articles and discussions usually fall into one of two categories: the trans-antagonistic position, which comes from a belief that trans people are “delusional, wayward and/or misled”, and the trans-suspicious position, which mistakes the increased visibility of trans people for a “trend” where people who aren’t really trans pretend to be.

    There’s no point in spending any time on the first position, because it’s simple bigotry. But the second is more insidious, because on the face of it it sounds reasonable: you don’t hate trans people; you just have reasonable concerns.

    Serano:

    the argument that some people are easily swayed or misled into transitioning can only be made if one intentionally denies, discounts, or downplays the existence of societal transphobia, gender dysphoria, and the legitimacy of trans people’s gender identities. In other words, this line of reasoning is condescending and steeped in transphobia.

    The notion that some people who transition are not “really trans” presumes that cisgender and transgender are immutable, essentialist categories — this is absolutely not the case… Even if transitioning doesn’t pan out for these individuals for some reason, it does not mean that they were “really cisgender” all along; it simply means that transitioning was not the right path for them personally.

    …If the trans-suspicious position were true (i.e., that cis people are needlessly being pushed toward trans identities and transitioning), then the clear implication of these op-eds and think-pieces is that access to gender transition (and possibly even the acceptance of, or information about, transgender identities) should be restricted to some degree.

    …these op-eds and think-pieces are invariably written by cisgender authors who (as outsiders to all this) look upon this situation and reflexively come to the conclusion: “Oh no, some cisgender people are choosing or being misled into a transgender lifestyle!” But I would as ask: Why is this even a problem? I mean, so long as these supposed “cisgender-people-turned-transgender” are happy with their life choices and their post-transition lives, why should anyone even care? Frankly, I believe that this concern stems directly from the transphobic assumption that cisgender bodies are valid and valuable, whereas trans people’s are invalid and defective. It is this assumption that leads these authors to view these supposed “cisgender-people-turned-transgender” as an inherently undesirable outcome, even if these individuals wind up being happy in the end. After all, they have taken their precious and perfect cisgender bodies, and transformed them into defective transsexual ones. This helps to explain why the implicit premise of these pieces (i.e., that gender transition should be restricted in order to protect cis people) resonates with so many readers: Denying trans people access to healthcare and living happy lives seems like a small price to pay if it saves even a few cisgender people from making such a horrible mistake with their bodies.

    As Serano writes, there is no evidence that cisgender people are being “turned trans”: the fact that a few people who transition decide it isn’t the right thing for them (whether that’s temporarily or permanently) does not change the fact that for the overwhelming majority of trans people who transition, transition is a positive and sometimes life-saving process with an incredibly low regret rate.

    The dynamic here is quite similar to the “ex-gay” phenomenon. Conservative forces who insist that homosexuality is a “treatable disease” or merely an “alternative lifestyle” love to tout the existence of “ex-gays”

    The article goes into a lot of detail about the various questions asked about trans people and trans children in particular. The highlight in the quoted text is from the original article: it’s a section that’s been highlighted by other readers.

    The theme of [many] pieces is that something must be done to stop these cisgender-kids-being-turned-transgender, and the implicit solution is to curtail/limit/end childhood gender transition. Yet, in these pieces there is absolutely no consideration of how this might impact trans children who might benefit from gender transition. In fact, such oversights can lead to obvious hypocrisy. For example, authors often raise fears that some children (i.e., ones who are “really cisgender” in their minds) may be pushed into the “wrong” puberty, and thus may have to undergo expensive medical procedures to correct those bodily changes. But this precisely describes what a trans child would face if they were not allowed to transition until adulthood. If the former example concerns you, but the latter one doesn’t, then that’s a clear sign that you value cis bodies and lives over trans ones.

    In her conclusion, Serano writes:

    …what is really driving this debate is a difference of opinion with regards to what constitutes a “good outcome.” Trans activists and advocates like myself generally think that a good outcome is a happy child, regardless of whether they transition or not, or whether they grow up to be transsexual, non-binary, gender non-conforming, lesbian, gay, bisexual, etcetera. Trans-antagonistic and trans-suspicious people (who constantly cite “80% desistance”) seem to think that a good outcome is a cisgender child, and they seem to be willing to make transphobic arguments and subject transgender and gender non-conforming children to clinically ordained transphobia (i.e., gender-reparative therapies) in order to achieve that end goal.

    There’s no doubt that life is harder for trans people than it is for cisgender people; anyone who believes otherwise is coming from a position of ignorance or dogma. But there’s no inherent reason why it should be. To be blunt, the problem isn’t us. It’s you.

    Being a transgender person is not especially difficult in and of itself. But the one thing that does make transgender and gender non-conforming lives difficult and harrowing is transphobia.

    The sad truth is that the people who are most vocal about trans people have nothing to say about, and no interest in, the health, happiness or safety of trans people. To them, trans lives are simply less valuable than cisgender ones.

  • “Be mindful of who is telling you what to think”

    Caitlin Logan in The National writes about how the US Christian Right ended up with uncritical coverage in Scottish newspapers.

    Somewhat unsurprisingly to anyone who has been paying attention to public debates over apparently controversial legislation in Scotland over the past two decades, Free To Disagree is a campaign led by The Christian Institute.

    The Newcastle-based institute was one of two Christian organisations behind the Be Reasonable campaign against the “smacking ban” which passed in the Scottish Parliament last year. It played a significant role in halting the proposed Named Person scheme which would have given each child in Scotland a single point of contact to safeguard their welfare. And it has thrown its weight behind numerous campaigns and legal challenges across the UK against same-sex civil parternships, marriage and adoption, as well as abortion and assisted dying.

    …That ADF International should now crop up in the debate over Scotland’s hate crime laws is, therefore, as predictable as it is ominous. It is also no surprise that it appears to be working in lockstep with The Christian Institute, given that the former describes the latter as its “allied organisation”, and the two previously worked together on a legal challenge on behalf of a registrar who refused to officiate same-sex civil partnerships.

    …Part of being organised, of course, means being astute communicators, and these organisations are getting better at this all the time; using respectable, legalistic language to make themselves more palatable, all while pouring money into socially regressive causes that would see the rights of women and minorities stripped away. This is why the ADF International columns presented the Hate Crime Bill as a threat to open debate among feminists; this was a cynical ploy to muddy the waters, while eluding the organisation’s own agenda entirely.

    …free speech means very little when organisations or individuals can spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to scare politicians out of backing legislation they don’t like. Whether the basis for their hostility is religious belief or financial interest, the end result is the same: democracy is demeaned and the voices of those without means are drowned out.

  • “Rowling’s essay is an ugly thing: bitter, accusatory, cruel.”

    There’s a very good (and very detailed) piece by Nathan J Robinson in Current Affairs about everybody’s favourite litigious author.

    How did we get from the one place to the other? How did we go from the “beautiful fantasy world” to this exhibition of fear and dehumanization? Was she always like this? Why is she doing this? People who always detested the books can give fans a satisfied “I told you she sucked,” but this is far too simple. Rowling’s fiction is complex, thoughtful, deeply beloved. That has to be reconciled with any explanation of her ignorance on gender.

    …Before all the online transphobia, Rowling herself was adored, in part because she seemed an example of a “meritocracy” actually functioning: a talented woman producing something actually good and then getting rightly acclaimed for it. Fans wanted to love J.K. Rowling. They did love J.K. Rowling.

    This is a critical part of why so many of her readers feel so betrayed to see Rowling devolve into a Twitter personality who regularly says offensive things about transgender people. To have invented all of this… and then to become that? How disappointing. How sad. How typical. How distinctly non-magical.

    One of the key points made in this piece is that Rowling is acting from a position of ignorance: she doesn’t engage with the arguments, but simply dismisses them.

    Rowling’s essay is maddening, in part because, a lot like “intellectual dark web” criticism of feminist and anti-racist politics (see, e.g, Steven Pinker), it pretends to be Reasonable and Empathetic but is nothing of the kind, distorting the opposing arguments and failing to actually engage with the other side’s writing or thinking. It is, as Dominique Sisley writes for Huck, “dogmatism dressed up as rationalism,” misrepresenting facts, making unsubstantiated claims, presenting unrepresentative anecdotes as data, and spreading pernicious myths

    …Rowling does something here that people often do when telling a story about the Social Justice Mob shutting down dissenting opinion, which is that she assumes that the critics must have been wrong without actually investigating what their criticisms were.

    …Rowling, then, is ignorant. She couldn’t be bothered to read an introductory blog post, let alone actually research the subject. Here she is explaining that while she has been begged repeatedly to actually talk to (and listen to) the people she’s talking about, she has made no serious effort to do so.

    …Trans writers have carefully explained why what Rowling said is objectionable. In addition to Montgomerie’s piece, Zinnia Jones published a three-part series citing tons of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Do I think Rowling will read Jones’ careful explanation of how Rowling is misrepresenting statistics in order to present a picture of some giant national trend of children becoming transgender? Do I think she will bother to investigate the abuse that trans writers receive (here’s journalist Siobhan O’Leary on what she gets in just 24 hours) so that Rowling can fix her misperception that the online trans community is uniquely hostile? No, I think she is going to conclude that the existence of disagreement with her essay means that she must be telling Unspeakable Truths that No One Dares To Say.

    The thing about transphobia is that in the same way many people who think or do racist things do not believe they are racist, many people who think or do transphobic things do not believe they are transphobic. Transphobic people are hateful, like the Westboro Baptist Church. They’re not people like you or like me.

    Except, of course, they are.

    People often do not notice their transphobia. They do not notice that they are applying different standards to trans people than they do to cis people.

    …A big part of racism, like transphobia, is the refusal to see certain people as human to the same degree you see yourself as human. They are talked about, but not listened to. I’ve written over and over and over for the last few years about the staggering fact that when critics of “social justice” and “identity politics” write about these things, they don’t seem to take the time to read a single book by the people about whom they have such strong opinions.

    It’s a really good article. You should probably read it before Rowling’s lawyers move in.

  • The people who love to hate

    Yesterday, the Scottish Daily Mail ran a front page story damning Scotland’s proposed new anti-hate crime legislation.

    The source of the story is Lois McLatchie, who the Daily Mail says “works with the UN Human Rights Council”.

    That’s a very clever way of implying she’s part of the Council. She isn’t; in fact, she is part of an organisation that represents pretty much everything the UN HRC stands against. McLatchie lobbies the UN Human Rights Council, because she’s the legal analyst for ADF International.

    ADF International is an anti-abortion, anti-LGBT hate group.

    Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.

    ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. Since the election of President Trump, ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration’s attack on LGBTQ rights.

    It’s hardly surprising that the ADF is against any legislation that might suppress its ability to spread hate. And it’s also unsurprising that the Daily Mail would happily jump into bed with the Christian Right yet again: its anti-trans campaigning frequently platforms evangelical groups from the lunatic fringe, and might well fall foul of any anti-hate speech legislation. But giving the front page to the ADF is a new, chilling low.

    The US Christian Right operates globally, pouring its considerable resources into overt and covert campaigning against women’s rights and LGBT people’s rights. It’s connected to the violent anti-LGBT movements in Eastern Europe. It tried to influence the Irish referendum on women’s reproductive freedom. It’s trying to influence, and appears to be funding moves against, a whole swathe of legislation in the UK and in Scotland. And it’s increasingly indistinguishable from the far right.

    The Daily Mail, once again, is dining with the Devil.