Julia Serano's Blog, page 5
January 21, 2019
my thoughts on Twitter, tagging, subtweeting, & blocking
I
joined Twitter
back in 2011 and, for the most part, I've appreciated the experience – it is the social media platform that I spend the most time on. It's a great place for me to get the word out about my writings and music, and to find/follow/read other people's work. But over the last few years, Twitter has become far more difficult to navigate.
For me personally, the primary reason has been the anti-transgender backlash we've been living through the last few years. Not that long ago, trans people were not in the public eye so much, and while trans-haters definitely existed online, they were not very organized. But nowadays, they are far more vocal and coordinated in their efforts. Often they will swarm transgender people's (and allies') feeds expressing hatred and misinformation. Increasingly, they've resorted to mass reporting to get trans people suspended from the platform for relatively benign things.
Then there are the usual aspects of Twitter that most of us have engaged in at one time or another – e.g., quote-tweeting articles & tweets that we disagree with (thus enabling/encouraging our followers to comment upon them as well); tagging/@-ing other people into conversations that they'd rather not be a part of. While not always done in a mean-spirited manner, these things can also make Twitter somewhat inhospitable at times.
As a writer, I am quite used to being criticized. And I understand that social media is now the new public forum where ideas will be shared and debated. While I am always open to listening to sincere constructive criticism, far more often than not, the negative comments I receive on Twitter these days are either thinly veiled (if at all) attempts to smear or dismiss transgender people and perspectives, or more general complaints about "liberals," "feminists," "SJWs," and the like. In some cases, these individuals may simply be "letting off steam" or "getting something off their chest," but the end result (whether intended or not) is that other people who are fundamentally opposed to my perspective & existence will likely find that comment and flood my feed, thus creating a hostile environment for both me and my followers.
So long story short, I have become very liberal with blocking accounts.
I've decided not to use publicly available blocklists, as they can be blunt instruments that impact non-problematic people. So how do I determine who to block? Well, here is a list of the most common reasons. These guidelines also include my thoughts on tagging and subtweeting – if you genuinely do want to follow or interact with me on Twitter, I encourage you to read them, as they directly relate to the matter of blocking.
1) If I come across your account, and your tweets and/or bio includes any anti-trans propaganda or dog-whistles, or basically any slurs/dog-whistles against any marginalized group, you will be immediately blocked. Seriously, why are you even a person?!? (In my experience, many of these accounts *only* spew anti-trans hate, so it's likely that they are merely sockpuppets.)
2) In the event of #1, if I have the time, I may go through your following/followers lists and preemptively block all other explicit-hatred-in-the-bio accounts. I highly recommend this, especially for trans folks, as it's an effective way to exponentially reduce anti-trans pile-ons and mass-reporting attempts.
3) If you don't like me, or you disagree with what I say, then by all means subtweet away! (i.e., talk about me without tagging/@-ing me). I will probably never see it. And even if I did, so long as it's just criticism of my work, I will not intervene. Although if it includes ad hominem attacks or hate speech, I will be inclined to block you.
4) If you do decide to tag/@ me de novo, can I ask why you are doing this?
if it's to contact me about something important, this is not the best way to get in touch with me, as I don't see all my notifications. Please try emailing me instead (you can find out how to do so on my website).if it's to share your appreciation of my work, thank you very much! If or when I see it, I may "like" or re-tweet it. FYI, if you'd rather me not publicly like/re-tweet your appreciation tweets, then I encourage you to not tag me on them.if it's to ask a thoughtful question, I will try to answer it if I can, although like I said, I don't see all my notifications, and don't have time to answer all questions.if it's thoughtful criticism (and I see it), I will most certainly take it into consideration. If I have the time and energy, I might even respond and/or send you a link to a previous piece where I've addressed similar criticisms.if your criticisms of me are snarky or dismissive (but fall shy of hate speech) and I see it, I may block you, depending on the context. As a general rule, if you are some rando from outside of the communities that I write about/participate in, you will most likely be blocked; otherwise I may let it slide. Unless, of course, it is something you do on a repeated basis, at which point I'll probably block you.Most importantly: PLEASE DO NOT TAG ME INTO conversations with people who are fundamentally opposed to my existence & perspectives. Often people do this in a vicious manner – they are hoping to sic the transphobes/bigots/anti-SJW-types/etc. in that conversation onto me. Others times, people who share my views will tag me into the conversation in the hopes that I will back them up in their arguments against the transphobes/bigots/anti-SJW-types/etc. they have taken on. While different in intent, both situations have the same net effect: my feed becomes flooded with transphobes/bigots/anti-SJW-types/etc! If I believe you have done this unintentionally, I may ask you to untag me. If you fail to comply, I will have no choice but to block you, for all the reasons stated above.
5) If you genuinely want to follow me, and have no desire to harass me, but find yourself blocked for some reason, I am open to unblocking you. Just contact me (e.g., via email) and I will reconsider the situation.
So that's my policy.
While I find Twitter to be the best social media platform for sharing my work (particularly my writings), I also find it to be the WORST possible venue for debating people who disagree with my perspectives, not only because of the 140 280 character limitations, but because this platform is especially prone to pile-ons, due to the fact that anyone (e.g., outsiders, bigots, and sockpuppets) can crash in on any conversation. This is the reason why I primarily write essays, which allow me to more thoroughly make my case, and address nuances and caveats that inevitably get lost in brief Twitter exchanges. So if you want to engage trans-suspicious & trans-antagonistic individuals, and/or people who constantly complain about "identity politics" and "political correctness," by all means, share links to my essays with them, as that is where I make my best case!
But please please please, do not tag me into those conversations. Thank you in advance...
[note: If you appreciate this piece and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
For me personally, the primary reason has been the anti-transgender backlash we've been living through the last few years. Not that long ago, trans people were not in the public eye so much, and while trans-haters definitely existed online, they were not very organized. But nowadays, they are far more vocal and coordinated in their efforts. Often they will swarm transgender people's (and allies') feeds expressing hatred and misinformation. Increasingly, they've resorted to mass reporting to get trans people suspended from the platform for relatively benign things.
Then there are the usual aspects of Twitter that most of us have engaged in at one time or another – e.g., quote-tweeting articles & tweets that we disagree with (thus enabling/encouraging our followers to comment upon them as well); tagging/@-ing other people into conversations that they'd rather not be a part of. While not always done in a mean-spirited manner, these things can also make Twitter somewhat inhospitable at times.
As a writer, I am quite used to being criticized. And I understand that social media is now the new public forum where ideas will be shared and debated. While I am always open to listening to sincere constructive criticism, far more often than not, the negative comments I receive on Twitter these days are either thinly veiled (if at all) attempts to smear or dismiss transgender people and perspectives, or more general complaints about "liberals," "feminists," "SJWs," and the like. In some cases, these individuals may simply be "letting off steam" or "getting something off their chest," but the end result (whether intended or not) is that other people who are fundamentally opposed to my perspective & existence will likely find that comment and flood my feed, thus creating a hostile environment for both me and my followers.
So long story short, I have become very liberal with blocking accounts.
I've decided not to use publicly available blocklists, as they can be blunt instruments that impact non-problematic people. So how do I determine who to block? Well, here is a list of the most common reasons. These guidelines also include my thoughts on tagging and subtweeting – if you genuinely do want to follow or interact with me on Twitter, I encourage you to read them, as they directly relate to the matter of blocking.
1) If I come across your account, and your tweets and/or bio includes any anti-trans propaganda or dog-whistles, or basically any slurs/dog-whistles against any marginalized group, you will be immediately blocked. Seriously, why are you even a person?!? (In my experience, many of these accounts *only* spew anti-trans hate, so it's likely that they are merely sockpuppets.)
2) In the event of #1, if I have the time, I may go through your following/followers lists and preemptively block all other explicit-hatred-in-the-bio accounts. I highly recommend this, especially for trans folks, as it's an effective way to exponentially reduce anti-trans pile-ons and mass-reporting attempts.
3) If you don't like me, or you disagree with what I say, then by all means subtweet away! (i.e., talk about me without tagging/@-ing me). I will probably never see it. And even if I did, so long as it's just criticism of my work, I will not intervene. Although if it includes ad hominem attacks or hate speech, I will be inclined to block you.
4) If you do decide to tag/@ me de novo, can I ask why you are doing this?
if it's to contact me about something important, this is not the best way to get in touch with me, as I don't see all my notifications. Please try emailing me instead (you can find out how to do so on my website).if it's to share your appreciation of my work, thank you very much! If or when I see it, I may "like" or re-tweet it. FYI, if you'd rather me not publicly like/re-tweet your appreciation tweets, then I encourage you to not tag me on them.if it's to ask a thoughtful question, I will try to answer it if I can, although like I said, I don't see all my notifications, and don't have time to answer all questions.if it's thoughtful criticism (and I see it), I will most certainly take it into consideration. If I have the time and energy, I might even respond and/or send you a link to a previous piece where I've addressed similar criticisms.if your criticisms of me are snarky or dismissive (but fall shy of hate speech) and I see it, I may block you, depending on the context. As a general rule, if you are some rando from outside of the communities that I write about/participate in, you will most likely be blocked; otherwise I may let it slide. Unless, of course, it is something you do on a repeated basis, at which point I'll probably block you.Most importantly: PLEASE DO NOT TAG ME INTO conversations with people who are fundamentally opposed to my existence & perspectives. Often people do this in a vicious manner – they are hoping to sic the transphobes/bigots/anti-SJW-types/etc. in that conversation onto me. Others times, people who share my views will tag me into the conversation in the hopes that I will back them up in their arguments against the transphobes/bigots/anti-SJW-types/etc. they have taken on. While different in intent, both situations have the same net effect: my feed becomes flooded with transphobes/bigots/anti-SJW-types/etc! If I believe you have done this unintentionally, I may ask you to untag me. If you fail to comply, I will have no choice but to block you, for all the reasons stated above.
5) If you genuinely want to follow me, and have no desire to harass me, but find yourself blocked for some reason, I am open to unblocking you. Just contact me (e.g., via email) and I will reconsider the situation.
So that's my policy.
While I find Twitter to be the best social media platform for sharing my work (particularly my writings), I also find it to be the WORST possible venue for debating people who disagree with my perspectives, not only because of the 140 280 character limitations, but because this platform is especially prone to pile-ons, due to the fact that anyone (e.g., outsiders, bigots, and sockpuppets) can crash in on any conversation. This is the reason why I primarily write essays, which allow me to more thoroughly make my case, and address nuances and caveats that inevitably get lost in brief Twitter exchanges. So if you want to engage trans-suspicious & trans-antagonistic individuals, and/or people who constantly complain about "identity politics" and "political correctness," by all means, share links to my essays with them, as that is where I make my best case!
But please please please, do not tag me into those conversations. Thank you in advance...
[note: If you appreciate this piece and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
September 20, 2018
consider bringing me out to your college campus!
So a new academic year has begun, and as always, I am looking forward to having the opportunity to speak/perform at various colleges & universities this year!If you are affiliated with a college – especially if you belong to a trans, LGBTQIA+, women's and/or feminist-related organization – please consider bringing me out to your campus. And even if you aren't associated with a college yourself, feel free to forward this onto people that you know who are students or staff elsewhere.
For those interested parties, I have recently updated my "booking" webpage containing pertinent information, including short descriptions of some of my most frequently requested talks...
Thanks for your consideration! -julia
September 19, 2018
new updates about writings, upcoming shows & talks, etc!
In a
previous post
, I described my two different email lists: The
julia update
comes out about 4–6 times a year, and shares all of my latest writings, shows, and creative endeavors. Then I have a
music-only update
(for my two music projects *soft vowel sounds* & Bitesize) that comes out more frequently, anytime I have a new music show or release. You can sign up for them via those links, if you wish.
I'm telling you this because I just released two new updates: a music one , and a more general julia update — I encourage you to check them out! Here are a few highlights:
I recently published a new Medium piece: The Superstition that LGBTQ+ People Are “Contagious” — please share and give it lots of "claps"!follow up pieces and interviews (plus a meme!) related to last month's Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria essay .my first college speaking events of the 2018-19 year are coming up in early October! If you want me to visit your school, please check out my booking webpage .two new San Francisco *soft vowel sounds* shows: a free one this Thursday (Sept. 20th) and a Halloween show on October 17th !Finally, a reminder that I am giving away a free mp3 of one of my songs with each music update – another reason to consider signing up! This month's free song is the Bitesize classic "Yellow Belt" – check out the update if you wanna download it!
I'm telling you this because I just released two new updates: a music one , and a more general julia update — I encourage you to check them out! Here are a few highlights:
I recently published a new Medium piece: The Superstition that LGBTQ+ People Are “Contagious” — please share and give it lots of "claps"!follow up pieces and interviews (plus a meme!) related to last month's Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria essay .my first college speaking events of the 2018-19 year are coming up in early October! If you want me to visit your school, please check out my booking webpage .two new San Francisco *soft vowel sounds* shows: a free one this Thursday (Sept. 20th) and a Halloween show on October 17th !Finally, a reminder that I am giving away a free mp3 of one of my songs with each music update – another reason to consider signing up! This month's free song is the Bitesize classic "Yellow Belt" – check out the update if you wanna download it!
August 30, 2018
a personal statement regarding the ROGD controversy and why you probably won't be hearing from me for the next few days
This summer, in the wake of The Atlantic cover story, plus other similar recent pieces, I made the decision to dedicate most of my writing time over the rest of 2018 to challenging the current backlash against transgender children and the gender-affirming healthcare model. This has meant putting a book that I have been writing about activism (more generally) on hold, which sucks, but I feel the former is a more immediate and pressing matter at this moment in time. Behind the scenes, I have been working on a series of essays along these lines that I hope to roll out over the next 5-to-6 months, so stay tuned. And as always, if you appreciate this work, please consider
supporting me on Patreon
.Anyway, one of the essays that I have been working on was about the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria movement . Last week, when I learned the Littman paper had just been formally published (and I was already familiar with this work from the poster-version that appeared last year in the Journal of Adolescent Health), I decided to make it my top priority. And I ended it up publishing it on Medium on August 22nd (you can read it via the previous link).
My purpose in writing the essay was not to "suppress research I disagree with" or to "drag Littman's name in the mud," as some are now accusing. I was simply countering disinformation (i.e., promoted by ROGD advocates online and in recent op-eds) and a skewed research study that has potential far-reaching healthcare and social ramifications (i.e., the Littman paper). I never once resorted to ad hominem attacks in my essay, nor did I call for the paper to be investigated or retracted. I have written about other transgender-related studies and theories in the past - if you were to comb through them all, you would find lots of arguments and criticisms, but not a single instance where I have called for a paper to be investigated or retracted. I have simply participated in these debates. And they are not truly debates if you don't allow people like me to participate in them.
But ever since word came that PLOS One *is* investigating the Littman paper, I have found myself unexpectedly swept up into a national news story. Some commentators and pundits are framing this as "PLOS One is investigating the paper because trans people are upset about it" - this is utterly ridiculous. There are *lots* of published studies that trans people have objected to over the years, yet they haven't been investigated or retracted. No journal would ever do such a thing. If PLOS One is investigating it, it's because they have serious scientific concerns, not because trans people complained. So please, let's all wait for PLOS One to release their findings before jumping to any conclusions.
Anyway, while I generally appreciate it when people find my writings to be worthy of interest or attention, in this particular case, it has made me a target for people who have "XX," or a red X, or the word "deplorable" in their handles to lash out at me on social media. (Seriously? "Deplorable"? Y'all are still using that?!). I honestly don't mind people who critique what I have written, as that is well within their rights. But I've been a bit overwhelmed by some of the hate and assumptions and accusations and misrepresentations of my views that I have experienced of late.
So now we come to the personal part of this personal statement: For me, the backdrop to all of this has been the fact that, over the last month, my 18 year old cat Flutie has been dealing with liver failure, and we've been administering end of life care for her. Sadly, she took a turn for the worse over the last 72 hours, so today our vet performed in-home euthanasia. It's been a really rough few days, not to mention entire month, not to mention the whole year, which included losing another dear animal companion - my bird Buddy - back in March.
All of this is to say, I'm a bit of a mess right now emotionally. And I'm not really in a mindset to deal with all the accusations and misrepresentations and sometimes flat out hatred that I've been subjected to over the last week. So I am going to take a short break from social media and emails in the coming days, as I work through my grief.
If you are someone looking to interview me, feel free to quote from my original ROGD essay and this follow up . My apologies to those who have tried to contact me in the last week or so and have not heard back from me. See you all soon...
August 26, 2018
understanding TERF talking points on transition
1. When an insistent, persistent, consistent trans child socially transitions (no medical interventions, completely reversible). TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because 80% desistance!
2. When a trans child goes on puberty blockers (which are safe & the effects completely reversible). TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because children need to experience "natural puberty" in order to fully identify with their "biological sex."
3. When older trans teenagers finally go on hormones and contemplate surgery. TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because that's irreversible. And mutilation!
4. When a trans adult transitions. TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because we don't want any "men" with "penises" in women's spaces. Plus, you haven't been socialized as female, so therefore you can never be a woman!
There is only one way to square this circle: TERFs don't want trans people to exist, in any capacity. Period. That is the only logic at work here. Any concern that they express toward transgender and trans-questioning children is insincere, as their one and only goal is to make us disappear.
2. When a trans child goes on puberty blockers (which are safe & the effects completely reversible). TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because children need to experience "natural puberty" in order to fully identify with their "biological sex."
3. When older trans teenagers finally go on hormones and contemplate surgery. TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because that's irreversible. And mutilation!
4. When a trans adult transitions. TERF response: No, you can't do that! Because we don't want any "men" with "penises" in women's spaces. Plus, you haven't been socialized as female, so therefore you can never be a woman!
There is only one way to square this circle: TERFs don't want trans people to exist, in any capacity. Period. That is the only logic at work here. Any concern that they express toward transgender and trans-questioning children is insincere, as their one and only goal is to make us disappear.
August 14, 2018
sign up for my email lists & get free mp3s!
If you appreciate my writings, music, and performances, I highly encourage you to sign up for my email lists! I have two separate lists that you can join:julia update - this is the most comprehensive list. Once every 2–3 months, I will send out a thorough update about all my creative endeavors, including info about new book & music releases, links to my recent writings & interviews, plus upcoming speaking events & performances. Basically, the whole shebang!
*soft vowel sounds*/Bitesize update - this is my music-specific list. Updates are shorter and more frequent (but no more than one per month), mostly to alert folks about upcoming *soft vowel sounds* shows, as well as new music & videos when they arise.
You can sign up for either update (or both) by clicking those links.
As a bonus, each update will include a link to a free mp3 of one of my songs! These will be available exclusively (and for a limited time only) through my email updates. So be sure to sign up!
July 31, 2018
on Jesse Singal, slut-shaming, and calling women "hysterical"
I already told this story once before, in this piece, along with instances where Jesse Singal has purposefully lied about me, whipped up an online mob against me, and treated several other trans women with similar disrespect. I honestly want nothing more than for him to leave me the fuck alone—or at the very least, for him to only discuss my writings and positions, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. But he continues to harp about this, and spread lies about me. So here is a brief summary.
1) I regularly write about serious matters regarding transgender health and psychology. Jesse Singal disagrees with me on these matters, particularly with regards to the "80% desistance" statistic.
2) On July 25, 2016, Singal wrote a pro-"80% desistance" article, during which, in the midst of discussing my stance on this matter, he tossed in "as an aside, you should read her Daily Beast article about navigating the dating scene as a trans woman in San Francisco." That article had nothing to do with the topic at hand. And as I detail here, I know for a fact that Singal has read my work on sexualization and how it is an especially effective tool for invalidating trans women (the specific essay he read can be found here[PDF link]). So I presumed that he cited that dating piece in an attempt to purposefully slut-shame me.
3) In February 2017, Singal (via Twitter) promoted/retweeted the false notion that trans women are pressuring cisgender lesbians to sleep with them by calling them “transphobic” if they do not. (Once again, this incident is detailed here.) This idea runs contrary to the very premise of that "dating" article that Singal supposedly enjoyed so much that he interrupted his 80%-desistance piece to encourage his readers to read. I took this as further indication that he merely referenced that piece to slut-shame me.
4) On July 28, 2018, in a thread attacking Noah Berlatsky for his Jesse Singal Resource Page, Singal re-upped his claims that he simply "enjoyed" my dating article, and further argued that no unbiased person would view this incident as slut-shaming, and that any one who *does* view it as slut-shaming (aka, me) must be "hysterical and opportunistic idiots."
So yesterday I carried out the following Twitter poll, leaving out the specifics of this affair. Twenty people shared it (see here and here and here), so it most certainly reached some people who were not aware that this had anything to do with Singal. Here are the results:
Contrary to Singal's claims, only 1% (out of 246 votes) of people viewed citing an unrelated article about a woman's dating experiences as showing respect for her work. 74% viewed it as slut-shaming, while the remaining respondents said they weren't sure. In the comments, some of these people said that, while they might not call it "slut-shaming" per se, they believed that it was definitely a signal to readers that I was not to be taken seriously, as I write about frivolous topics such as "dating." While this perspective makes sense non-contextually, I also know for a fact that Singal has read my writings on the effectiveness of sexualizing trans women (see above), and that he has attempted to use my own arguments against me more than once.
Jesse Singal is accusing me of being a "hysterical and opportunistic idiot" in a highly public manner. I am a writer and have a reputation too, so I cannot simply ignore these accusations, as his media platform is far larger than mine. For those who presume that I am being "opportunistic" here, you can scour my writings and tweets and blogposts if you like, and you will find that (unlike Singal) I never resort to ad hominem attacks. I will call out bad journalism, opinions, and theories, but I do not stoop to demonizing people or making things personal.
I have written many critiques over the years, but I have never before claimed that a journalist has a history of treating trans women with disrespect, nor do I accuse random people I disagree with of slut-shaming me. I have done so in this instance because Jesse Singal has actually done these things.
And finally, a "pro-tip": If anyone ever does accuse you of slut-shaming, you probably shouldn't call them "hysterical," as that word has quite a history.
If you appreciate my writings and want to see more, please check out my Patreon page.
1) I regularly write about serious matters regarding transgender health and psychology. Jesse Singal disagrees with me on these matters, particularly with regards to the "80% desistance" statistic.
2) On July 25, 2016, Singal wrote a pro-"80% desistance" article, during which, in the midst of discussing my stance on this matter, he tossed in "as an aside, you should read her Daily Beast article about navigating the dating scene as a trans woman in San Francisco." That article had nothing to do with the topic at hand. And as I detail here, I know for a fact that Singal has read my work on sexualization and how it is an especially effective tool for invalidating trans women (the specific essay he read can be found here[PDF link]). So I presumed that he cited that dating piece in an attempt to purposefully slut-shame me.
3) In February 2017, Singal (via Twitter) promoted/retweeted the false notion that trans women are pressuring cisgender lesbians to sleep with them by calling them “transphobic” if they do not. (Once again, this incident is detailed here.) This idea runs contrary to the very premise of that "dating" article that Singal supposedly enjoyed so much that he interrupted his 80%-desistance piece to encourage his readers to read. I took this as further indication that he merely referenced that piece to slut-shame me.
4) On July 28, 2018, in a thread attacking Noah Berlatsky for his Jesse Singal Resource Page, Singal re-upped his claims that he simply "enjoyed" my dating article, and further argued that no unbiased person would view this incident as slut-shaming, and that any one who *does* view it as slut-shaming (aka, me) must be "hysterical and opportunistic idiots."
So yesterday I carried out the following Twitter poll, leaving out the specifics of this affair. Twenty people shared it (see here and here and here), so it most certainly reached some people who were not aware that this had anything to do with Singal. Here are the results:
poll for #women #writers: You routinely write about serious issues in your field (e.g., science/health). Another writer, in the middle of his critique of your position, encourages readers to check out an unrelated article you wrote about your dating experiences. You assume he is:— Julia Serano (@JuliaSerano) July 30, 2018
Contrary to Singal's claims, only 1% (out of 246 votes) of people viewed citing an unrelated article about a woman's dating experiences as showing respect for her work. 74% viewed it as slut-shaming, while the remaining respondents said they weren't sure. In the comments, some of these people said that, while they might not call it "slut-shaming" per se, they believed that it was definitely a signal to readers that I was not to be taken seriously, as I write about frivolous topics such as "dating." While this perspective makes sense non-contextually, I also know for a fact that Singal has read my writings on the effectiveness of sexualizing trans women (see above), and that he has attempted to use my own arguments against me more than once.
Jesse Singal is accusing me of being a "hysterical and opportunistic idiot" in a highly public manner. I am a writer and have a reputation too, so I cannot simply ignore these accusations, as his media platform is far larger than mine. For those who presume that I am being "opportunistic" here, you can scour my writings and tweets and blogposts if you like, and you will find that (unlike Singal) I never resort to ad hominem attacks. I will call out bad journalism, opinions, and theories, but I do not stoop to demonizing people or making things personal.
I have written many critiques over the years, but I have never before claimed that a journalist has a history of treating trans women with disrespect, nor do I accuse random people I disagree with of slut-shaming me. I have done so in this instance because Jesse Singal has actually done these things.
And finally, a "pro-tip": If anyone ever does accuse you of slut-shaming, you probably shouldn't call them "hysterical," as that word has quite a history.
If you appreciate my writings and want to see more, please check out my Patreon page.
June 30, 2018
Transgender is a Pan-Cultural and Trans-Historical Phenomenon
In my writings, I will often say that gender diversity and transgender identities are a “pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon.” What I mean by this is that if you consider other cultures, or look back through history, you will find examples of people who we would now (in this time and place) describe as falling under the transgender umbrella. This includes (but is not limited to) people who identified and lived as members of a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth, people who belonged to “third gender” categories—an umbrella term sometimes used to describe established gender categories that fall outside of the man/woman binary, which are fairly common in non-Western cultures), plus people who are gender non-conforming in all sorts of other ways.
At the end of this post, I will provide a list of books that describe such examples of gender diversity across cultures and throughout history. Or you could check out the Wikipedia page on this topic.
This evidence strongly suggests that gender diversity occurs naturally, rather than being a product of culture or modernity. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the phenomenon occurs entirely independent of culture—after all, our self-understandings and the labels we use to describe ourselves are most certainly influenced by cultural norms and the language and concepts we have at our disposal. But what I am saying is that there has to be some natural (likely biological) component to this gender diversity. The alternative hypothesis—i.e., that within each of these cultures, there is an entirely unique socially-based “cause” that accounts for this gender diversity—seems utterly preposterous, and is in dire need of being lopped off with Occam’s razor.
But for those who are relentless in their pursuit of an answer to this question, here is my two-cents: First off, it is extraordinarily unlikely that there is any one single “cause”—if there were, it would almost certainly have been discovered by now. This means that gender diversity is most likely what biologists call a “quantitative” or “complex” trait, influenced by numerous biological and possibly environmental factors. I discuss this in great length (and in a manner accessible to non-scientists) in Chapter 13 of my book Excluded . Or to put it a different way, those people who imagine that some day there will be some simple definitive test to determine who is (or will become) trans, well, don’t hold your breath—that is not how complex traits work!
Second, even without knowing which precise factors give rise to gender diversity, there is a simple explanation for it biologically. The existence of intersex people demonstrates that, for every possible sexually dimorphic trait there is (whether it be chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, etc.) there will be some outcomes that fall “outside of” or “in between” what is considered “standard” for female or male in our society. Given this, if there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism in the brain (which is admittedly controversial, although I address it in the aforementioned Excluded chapter, and to a lesser extent in this essay), then we should expect it to similarly vary across the population. This is a simple, yet highly probable, explanation for why gender diversity and transgender identities are a pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon.
I will end with this pan-cultural/trans-historical reading list for those who are interested. Note: Many of these books are older, and may use outdated language to describe gender-variant people. I put this list together back in 2012 while I was writing Excluded, so unfortunately it doesn’t include more recent books on the subject.
Vern L. Bullough and Bonnie Bullough, Cross Dressing: Sex and Gender (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993).Patrick Califia, Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism (San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1997), 120–162.Gilbert Herdt, Same Sex, Different Cultures: Exploring Gay and Lesbian Lives (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997).Gilbert Herdt (ed.) Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History (New York: Zone Books, 1996)Leslie Feinberg, Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996).Serena Nanda, Gender Diversity: Cross-cultural Variations (Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 2000).Joan Roughgarden, Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).[note: If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
At the end of this post, I will provide a list of books that describe such examples of gender diversity across cultures and throughout history. Or you could check out the Wikipedia page on this topic.
This evidence strongly suggests that gender diversity occurs naturally, rather than being a product of culture or modernity. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the phenomenon occurs entirely independent of culture—after all, our self-understandings and the labels we use to describe ourselves are most certainly influenced by cultural norms and the language and concepts we have at our disposal. But what I am saying is that there has to be some natural (likely biological) component to this gender diversity. The alternative hypothesis—i.e., that within each of these cultures, there is an entirely unique socially-based “cause” that accounts for this gender diversity—seems utterly preposterous, and is in dire need of being lopped off with Occam’s razor.
But for those who are relentless in their pursuit of an answer to this question, here is my two-cents: First off, it is extraordinarily unlikely that there is any one single “cause”—if there were, it would almost certainly have been discovered by now. This means that gender diversity is most likely what biologists call a “quantitative” or “complex” trait, influenced by numerous biological and possibly environmental factors. I discuss this in great length (and in a manner accessible to non-scientists) in Chapter 13 of my book Excluded . Or to put it a different way, those people who imagine that some day there will be some simple definitive test to determine who is (or will become) trans, well, don’t hold your breath—that is not how complex traits work!
Second, even without knowing which precise factors give rise to gender diversity, there is a simple explanation for it biologically. The existence of intersex people demonstrates that, for every possible sexually dimorphic trait there is (whether it be chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, etc.) there will be some outcomes that fall “outside of” or “in between” what is considered “standard” for female or male in our society. Given this, if there is such a thing as sexual dimorphism in the brain (which is admittedly controversial, although I address it in the aforementioned Excluded chapter, and to a lesser extent in this essay), then we should expect it to similarly vary across the population. This is a simple, yet highly probable, explanation for why gender diversity and transgender identities are a pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon.
I will end with this pan-cultural/trans-historical reading list for those who are interested. Note: Many of these books are older, and may use outdated language to describe gender-variant people. I put this list together back in 2012 while I was writing Excluded, so unfortunately it doesn’t include more recent books on the subject.
Vern L. Bullough and Bonnie Bullough, Cross Dressing: Sex and Gender (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993).Patrick Califia, Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism (San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1997), 120–162.Gilbert Herdt, Same Sex, Different Cultures: Exploring Gay and Lesbian Lives (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997).Gilbert Herdt (ed.) Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History (New York: Zone Books, 1996)Leslie Feinberg, Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996).Serena Nanda, Gender Diversity: Cross-cultural Variations (Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 2000).Joan Roughgarden, Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).[note: If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
June 12, 2018
Trans health professionals consider gender-reparative therapies to be unethical
This is not a post so much as it is a citation to be referenced in my (and perhaps other people's) future writings on this topic.
Gender-reparative therapies (sometimes called gender-conversion therapies) typically involve the use of positive and negative reinforcement strategies—e.g., having parents discourage or withhold gender non-conforming expression, toys, play partners, etc., while encouraging gender-normative behaviors—in an attempt to convert transgender or gender non-conforming children into cisgender and gender-normative ones.
While the practice used to be more common, and while a few researchers (such as Ken Zucker) still advocate for such approaches, the field of trans health as a whole now considers such practices to be both unsuccessful (as it merely coerces children to temporarily hide or repress their gender identities and expressions, which they may assert again at a later age) and unethical (as it often results in a host of negative psychological outcomes, as reviewed in Temple Newhook et al., 2018).
WPATH's SOC7The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has said as much in their most current Standards of Care (SOC) for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People (version 7). A PDF of the SOC7 can be downloaded here. The passage in question can be found on page 175, and it reads as follows:
Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical.
Here are a few other articles I have written that touch on this subject: Placing Ken Zucker's clinic in historical context discusses the long history of gender-reparative therapies, and links to books, stories, and articles that describe what these practices entail, and how traumatic they often are for children who are subjected to them. The big problem with Alice Dreger’s Wired article about (or not about) gender conversion therapies . Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates addresses popular misconceptions and biases that plague debates about gender-reparative therapies versus gender-affirming approaches. Transgender Agendas, Social Contagion, Peer Pressure, and Prevalence challenges fearmongering claims that gender-affirming approaches are "turning children transgender."
[note: If you appreciate my writings and want to see more, please consider supporting me on Patreon]
Gender-reparative therapies (sometimes called gender-conversion therapies) typically involve the use of positive and negative reinforcement strategies—e.g., having parents discourage or withhold gender non-conforming expression, toys, play partners, etc., while encouraging gender-normative behaviors—in an attempt to convert transgender or gender non-conforming children into cisgender and gender-normative ones.
While the practice used to be more common, and while a few researchers (such as Ken Zucker) still advocate for such approaches, the field of trans health as a whole now considers such practices to be both unsuccessful (as it merely coerces children to temporarily hide or repress their gender identities and expressions, which they may assert again at a later age) and unethical (as it often results in a host of negative psychological outcomes, as reviewed in Temple Newhook et al., 2018).
WPATH's SOC7The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has said as much in their most current Standards of Care (SOC) for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People (version 7). A PDF of the SOC7 can be downloaded here. The passage in question can be found on page 175, and it reads as follows:Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical.
Here are a few other articles I have written that touch on this subject: Placing Ken Zucker's clinic in historical context discusses the long history of gender-reparative therapies, and links to books, stories, and articles that describe what these practices entail, and how traumatic they often are for children who are subjected to them. The big problem with Alice Dreger’s Wired article about (or not about) gender conversion therapies . Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates addresses popular misconceptions and biases that plague debates about gender-reparative therapies versus gender-affirming approaches. Transgender Agendas, Social Contagion, Peer Pressure, and Prevalence challenges fearmongering claims that gender-affirming approaches are "turning children transgender."
[note: If you appreciate my writings and want to see more, please consider supporting me on Patreon]
June 6, 2018
a Pride month benefit show & a summer of music!
Happy Pride month everyone! I have three
*soft vowel sounds*
live shows lined up for the summer, the first one being this weekend!This Saturday, June 9th, I will be playing at a benefit for LYRIC Center for LGBTQQ Youth. The event will be held at Laughing Monk Brewing (1439 Egbert Ave, Unit A, San Francisco, CA), who will be donating a portion of the evening’s sales to the cause. It's a great slate of music acts, including Cindy Emch, Mya Byrne, and Polythene Pam! If you're on Facebook, here's the event page.
I am the opening act, starting promptly at 6pm, so seriously, be sure to show up early!
If you want a sneak-peak into my set, I will be performing Open Letter, Switch Hitter, Macbeth, Greta Garbo, Music Box, Understudy, and my usual closer I Killed Sting, amongst other songs! All of those links will bring you to YouTube videos or Bandcamp pages where you can listen along to the songs. So prepare yourself to sing along! Or not, it's totally fine to just listen... : )
I have two other summer *svs* San Francisco shows lined up! While I'm not actively promoting them yet, you can find find out the dates by checking out my latest music email update, or you can sign up for my music email list here.
