Julia Serano's Blog, page 7
October 4, 2017
novel complete! now searching for potential agents and/or publishers
Some exciting news: I recently completed a manuscript for my debut novel! Now all I need to do is find a home for it.To that end, I'm in the earliest stages of researching agents and publishers who might make a good match for the book. Since I am an author with an established track record, and already have numerous literary connections & followers on social media, I figured that it couldn't hurt to get the word out about this in the event that somebody who is already familiar with my work is interested in possibly representing or publishing me. Or in lieu of that, perhaps you have agent recommendations that you'd be happy to share? If so, feel free to shoot me an email and/or share this news with others.
Interested parties can check out my bio, and my previous books & publications. Here is a brief "elevator pitch" for my novel:
Kat Cataclysm is an ethically non-monogamous bisexual woman and absurdist short fiction writer. 99 Erics is a humorous account of Kat’s experiences writing a book called 99 Erics, which is about her experiences dating ninety-nine different people named Eric. It is more surreal than slutty. Not that there is anything wrong with slutty.
The book is largely comprised of anecdotes from Kat’s dates with various Erics; satirical takes on relationships, sexual conventions, language, the writing process, book publishing, online media, and tech culture; and Kat’s smart yet silly digressions on a variety of topics, including the distorted nature of memories, hipsters, sex toys, YA dystopian fiction, Freudian slips, banana slug mating practices, mathematics, lucid dreaming, agnosticism, the internet of things, and Prince lyrics, to name but a few. These more fanciful passages are seamlessly interwoven with more serious and mundane matters, such as navigating the world as a woman and sexual minority, being an outcast who doesn’t really fit in, overcoming grief, struggling to make ends meet, and reconciling one’s past with the present. The end result is a fun and fast read that tackles meaty subjects and contemporary issues.
A synopsis, book proposal, sample chapters, and/or the full manuscript are available upon request.
For the record, I am not looking for novices - I have represented myself for my first two books, and have self-published my third, so I could do all this again myself if need be. I'd appreciate it if you could inform me about your past experience/clients/publications/etc. (even if it's simply pointing me to your website).
Thanks for listening! -julia
September 4, 2017
Call-Out Culture, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, and Social Justice Activism: essays and a new lecture
I have written extensively about these interrelated and highly debated topics. In this post, I compile these essays (see links below), and share the description for a brand new lecture I have prepared on this subject (and which summarizes my perspective on these matters). If you are potentially interested in having me present this talk at your college, conference, or other event, please visit my
booking page
for more details.THE TALK
A Social Justice Activist's Perspective on Call-Out Culture, Identity Politics, and Political Correctness
Over the last century, social justice activism has played a crucial role in challenging prejudice and promoting equity for women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups. While most of us profess support for these past accomplishments, we may nevertheless resist newer expressions of social justice activism, or dismiss them as examples of “call-out culture,” “identity politics,” or “political correctness” run amok. In this talk, author and activist Julia Serano addresses this discrepancy. Julia has written (particularly in her books Excluded and Outspoken) about how social justice movements sometimes become too exclusive, inflexible, or counterproductive -- tendencies that likely contribute to resistance toward contemporary activism, and for which Julia has suggested potential remedies. Julia also demonstrates how the general public's lack of awareness about how prejudice and discrimination actually work, and how activists can effectively counter them, is a major factor driving this resistance. Generating more light than heat, and remaining accessible to activists and non-activists alike, Julia will discuss the purpose of social justice activism and its limitations.
Here are essays that I have written pertaining to current debates about “call-out culture,” “identity politics,” and/or “political correctness”:
How to Write a “Political Correctness Run Amok” ArticlePrejudice, “Political Correctness,” and the Normalization of Donald TrumpFree Speech and the Paradox of ToleranceRefusing to Tolerate IntoleranceHate Speech versus Call-Out Culture (forthcoming)
My previous writings on how we might make more inclusive, flexible, and productive activist movements:A 2015 interview with me about “call-out culture” and intolerance in progressive and activist settingsActivism, Language, and Differences of Opinion - a compilation of 15 essays analyzing conflicts that sometimes arise within social justice activism, and how we may overcome themI discuss all these matters in greater depth throughout my book Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive, and in Part 5 of my book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism
On my website , you will find a comprehensive list of my writings , and information about my other talks/presentations .
August 28, 2017
Balancing activism, "free speech" & "call-out culture"
Last week, I published an essay called
Refusing to Tolerate Intolerance
, which makes the case that we must challenge and refuse to tolerate acts that are intended to dehumanize, intimidate, and silence minority/marginalized groups. I also explain why those who claim that we *should* tolerate said acts because of "free speech" 1) are misapplying the concept, 2) do not understand how marginalization actually works, 3) are behaving hypocritically, or 4) some combination thereof.
At the end of the piece, I mentioned that I am currently working on a follow up to that essay: “Hate Speech versus Call-Out Culture.” I have written about “call-out culture” at great length in the past, specifically in my second book
Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive
(shown to the right).
To the best of my knowledge, “call-out culture” is a term that originated within intra-activist discourses to describe expressions of activism that seemed misguided or unduly harsh to other activists. Back in the late zeros/aughts and early tens/teens, those of us who discussed this problem recognized that activism was crucial and that some call-outs are indeed necessary, and we were trying to balance that need with the fact that sometimes call-outs (in certain cases and contexts) can do more harm than good. Unfortunately, the phrase has since been appropriated by non-activists as a pejorative to smear any expression of activism that they dislike or disagree with.
While I have shared some of my thoughts on this topic elsewhere (e.g., this interview), until now, the only way to read about my assessment of “call-out culture,” and my proposed solutions to counter (or at least mitigate) it, was to buy a copy of my book Excluded. But recently, in the hopes of making these ideas more accessible, I have uploaded my eleven-page-long Excluded excerpt on how to reduce “call-out culture” to my Patreon site . So you can read it right now if you are one of my Patreon supporters!
If you are not one of my Patreon supporters, but you do want to read it, all you have to do is join Patreon and pledge to me at the $1 per month level (or higher). Then you can access it here. As a bonus, you'll also gain access to many other unpublished writings and behind-the-scenes updates, plus potential gifts depending upon how much you pledge (see my Patreon homepage and the sidebar to the right for details).
And if you aren't really into all that other stuff, you can always cancel your pledge next month, thereby spending a mere $1 for all of my thoughts (circa 2013) on "call-out culture."
Seems like a win-win proposition to me! And for all those who do sign on: 1) you can read it here, and 2) thank you for your support!
At the end of the piece, I mentioned that I am currently working on a follow up to that essay: “Hate Speech versus Call-Out Culture.” I have written about “call-out culture” at great length in the past, specifically in my second book
Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive
(shown to the right).To the best of my knowledge, “call-out culture” is a term that originated within intra-activist discourses to describe expressions of activism that seemed misguided or unduly harsh to other activists. Back in the late zeros/aughts and early tens/teens, those of us who discussed this problem recognized that activism was crucial and that some call-outs are indeed necessary, and we were trying to balance that need with the fact that sometimes call-outs (in certain cases and contexts) can do more harm than good. Unfortunately, the phrase has since been appropriated by non-activists as a pejorative to smear any expression of activism that they dislike or disagree with.
While I have shared some of my thoughts on this topic elsewhere (e.g., this interview), until now, the only way to read about my assessment of “call-out culture,” and my proposed solutions to counter (or at least mitigate) it, was to buy a copy of my book Excluded. But recently, in the hopes of making these ideas more accessible, I have uploaded my eleven-page-long Excluded excerpt on how to reduce “call-out culture” to my Patreon site . So you can read it right now if you are one of my Patreon supporters!
If you are not one of my Patreon supporters, but you do want to read it, all you have to do is join Patreon and pledge to me at the $1 per month level (or higher). Then you can access it here. As a bonus, you'll also gain access to many other unpublished writings and behind-the-scenes updates, plus potential gifts depending upon how much you pledge (see my Patreon homepage and the sidebar to the right for details).
And if you aren't really into all that other stuff, you can always cancel your pledge next month, thereby spending a mere $1 for all of my thoughts (circa 2013) on "call-out culture."
Seems like a win-win proposition to me! And for all those who do sign on: 1) you can read it here, and 2) thank you for your support!
August 3, 2017
my music on Bandcamp - special offer!
Tomorrow (Friday, August 3rd), Bandcamp is donating 100% of their profits to the Transgender Law Center (a wonderful organization). So I encourage you to check out my old noise-pop band
Bitesize
and my current solo music project *soft vowels sounds* on that platform. Via those links, you can listen to all the songs for free, and if you enjoy them, please consider purchasing them tomorrow!If you are unfamiliar with my music, feel free to check out my blogpost Transgender-themed artists, bands, music, songs & anthems , which shares many of my trans-themed songs (including my "Lola" parody: "Ray"), plus links to lists of many other transgender musical artists that you can also support...
July 15, 2017
Lies about Transgender People and the Vagina Monologues
This is one in a series of essays exposing falsehoods forwarded by feminists who are suspicious or antagonistic toward transgender people. This series includes Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments and my forthcoming essay Transgender People and “Biological Sex” Myths. If you appreciate this work, please consider supporting me on Patreon.
These days, almost every anti-transgender hit-piece written from a feminist perspective will mention an incident that occurred in 2015, in which Mount Holyoke College canceled a scheduled performance of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues for not being inclusive of transgender people. By citing this instance out of context, these writers attempt to assert or imply that:
1) all trans people must want to censor the The Vagina Monologues.
2) more sinisterly, trans people are trying to stop women from talking about their vaginas.
3) this is yet another example of why feminism and trans activism are inherently incompatible.
However, this framing purposefully ignores two crucial factors.
an excerpt from "Deconstructive Surgery,"
from my book Whipping GirlIn 2004, I was invited to perform a “rogue monologue” (i.e., one written by me, not Ensler) for a UC Berkeley performance of the The Vagina Monologues. That piece, entitled “Deconstructive Surgery,” would later end up being a chapter in my first book Whipping Girl (as shown in the accompanying image).
Also in 2004, Eve Ensler added a new trans woman monologue called “They Beat the Girl Out of My Boy...Or So They Tried”—if you click on that link, you will find plenty of videos of trans students at various colleges performing the piece. In fact, the piece was debuted in the first ever all-transgender cast performance of the play that same year.
The fact that anti-trans feminists who cite the Mount Holyoke College incident never bother to mention any of these facts demonstrates that they are purposefully showing only one side of the story in an attempt to smear trans people as “anti-woman” or “anti-feminist.”
So anyway, trans people have a diversity of views on the The Vagina Monologues. Which brings me to my second point: so do cisgender people. If you google “Vagina Monologues critics,” you will find numerous criticisms that have nothing to do with trans-inclusion. A common criticism is its general lack of diversity. Many women of color have objected to the fact that “depictions of sexual violence are told through mostly non-white and non-US centered stories” (quote from the Wikipedia page linked to above). Sex-positive feminists have critiqued the play for being sex-negative and for largely ignoring the clitoris. Queer women have pointed out that the one lesbian monologue basically depicts statutory rape. Not to mention the fact that many cisgender women oppose the play for conservative or religious reasons.
Once again, none of this is ever mentioned in the aforementioned anti-trans feminist hit-pieces, demonstrating that the women who pen these articles are insincere and willing to blatantly distort the facts on the matter in order to malign us.
The Vagina Monologues was first performed in 1996, and as with all artistic endeavors, elements of it are likely to appear outdated or problematic over time. I believe that we can acknowledge that the play was (and still is) revelatory to many women, while also recognizing that, like all art and activism, it was largely a product of its time.
Finally, I have never once met a trans person who was against women speaking openly about their bodies or their vaginas. So if you are a woman who wishes to do this, then by all means, talk away! All that we ask is that, if you do talk about vaginas, please don't presume that all women have one, and that all men do not.
[note: This piece started out as a Twitter essay, which you can read here. If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
These days, almost every anti-transgender hit-piece written from a feminist perspective will mention an incident that occurred in 2015, in which Mount Holyoke College canceled a scheduled performance of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues for not being inclusive of transgender people. By citing this instance out of context, these writers attempt to assert or imply that:
1) all trans people must want to censor the The Vagina Monologues.
2) more sinisterly, trans people are trying to stop women from talking about their vaginas.
3) this is yet another example of why feminism and trans activism are inherently incompatible.
However, this framing purposefully ignores two crucial factors.
an excerpt from "Deconstructive Surgery," from my book Whipping GirlIn 2004, I was invited to perform a “rogue monologue” (i.e., one written by me, not Ensler) for a UC Berkeley performance of the The Vagina Monologues. That piece, entitled “Deconstructive Surgery,” would later end up being a chapter in my first book Whipping Girl (as shown in the accompanying image).
Also in 2004, Eve Ensler added a new trans woman monologue called “They Beat the Girl Out of My Boy...Or So They Tried”—if you click on that link, you will find plenty of videos of trans students at various colleges performing the piece. In fact, the piece was debuted in the first ever all-transgender cast performance of the play that same year.
The fact that anti-trans feminists who cite the Mount Holyoke College incident never bother to mention any of these facts demonstrates that they are purposefully showing only one side of the story in an attempt to smear trans people as “anti-woman” or “anti-feminist.”
So anyway, trans people have a diversity of views on the The Vagina Monologues. Which brings me to my second point: so do cisgender people. If you google “Vagina Monologues critics,” you will find numerous criticisms that have nothing to do with trans-inclusion. A common criticism is its general lack of diversity. Many women of color have objected to the fact that “depictions of sexual violence are told through mostly non-white and non-US centered stories” (quote from the Wikipedia page linked to above). Sex-positive feminists have critiqued the play for being sex-negative and for largely ignoring the clitoris. Queer women have pointed out that the one lesbian monologue basically depicts statutory rape. Not to mention the fact that many cisgender women oppose the play for conservative or religious reasons.
Once again, none of this is ever mentioned in the aforementioned anti-trans feminist hit-pieces, demonstrating that the women who pen these articles are insincere and willing to blatantly distort the facts on the matter in order to malign us.
The Vagina Monologues was first performed in 1996, and as with all artistic endeavors, elements of it are likely to appear outdated or problematic over time. I believe that we can acknowledge that the play was (and still is) revelatory to many women, while also recognizing that, like all art and activism, it was largely a product of its time.
Finally, I have never once met a trans person who was against women speaking openly about their bodies or their vaginas. So if you are a woman who wishes to do this, then by all means, talk away! All that we ask is that, if you do talk about vaginas, please don't presume that all women have one, and that all men do not.
[note: This piece started out as a Twitter essay, which you can read here. If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
July 4, 2017
why my piece won’t be appearing in The Stranger
On Wednesday, June 28th, the Seattle news outlet The Stranger published an article called The Detransitioners: They Were Transgender, Until They Weren't. Amongst its numerous flaws, it gave credence to the notion that there is a “social contagion” to become transgender, and that this is a cause behind why some people eventually decide to detransition.
Back in 2016, I detailed both the biased thinking behind, and the potential harm caused by, this notion, in my lengthy and nuanced essay Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates (and in this follow up). Herzog reached out to interview me for her The Stranger article, saying she had read my essay. I was open to it at first, until it became clear to me that she was planning to legitimize that “social contagion” theory in her piece. When Herzog's article came out last week, I penned a blogpost called Stop pitting detransitioners against happily transitioned people, in which I pointed out the skewed framing and several (albeit not all) of the misconceptions that Herzog's article forwarded.
Anyway, The Stranger editor thanked me for my blogpost and asked if they could re-publish it. The way they reached out to me seemed to indicate that they realized (in retrospect) the faults with Herzog’s article and wanted to offer their readers a counter point of view. Over the weekend, we (the editor and I) worked out the logistics, and I was told my piece would likely be published on their website on Monday (July 3rd).
Then on that Monday, I received an email from the editor mentioning that they would be running my piece first, followed by Katie Herzog’s response to the reactions she received to her article (including her response to my blogpost). This was the first that I had heard of any of this, and frankly I felt a bit blindsided by this news. I was led to believe that they wanted to publish my blogpost in recognition of the flaws in Herzog’s article, but now it seemed like they might just be setting my piece up for Herzog to knock it back down.
When I expressed my reservations about this arrangement, the editor said that instead Herzog’s piece would come out first, after which point I could decide whether to allow them the right to re-publish my blogpost.
Late on Monday, Herzog’s piece came out. It was most certainly not a thoughtful response from someone who was open to listening to marginalized voices and willing to admit to the shortcomings of their piece. On the contrary, it was an extremely vindictive retort, most of it focused on personally undermining Danni Askini and Ijeoma Oluo, two activists/writers/people who I greatly respect. Herzog is obviously free to say what she wants about other people, but I question The Stranger’s decision to allow their large news/media platform to be used to trash individuals who pen Facebook posts that critique their articles and publishing decisions.
At one point, Herzog mocks Oluo’s claim that she cited a “discredited” doctor in her article, and presumes that Oluo was referring to James Cantor (although it could just as easily have been Ray Blanchard, who Herzog also quotes); then Herzog gives Cantor several paragraphs to reply to this charge. What Herzog doesn’t mention is that both Cantor and Blanchard are considered (by both trans people and most trans health professionals) to represent the far pathologizing/conservative wing of thought on these matters. Herzog does not provide this context in her article, which contributes to the overall skewed framing. I believe that Oluo and others have every right to critique Herzog for such decisions.
Herzog’s response to my post is short—it does not at all address any of the substantive points that I make in my piece. Instead, she simply tries to dismiss me for not quoting people who detransitioned in my pieces. Of course, I don’t quote happily transitioned people, or trans health professionals, or parents of trans kids either, for the simple reason that I am an essayist, not a journalist. But I have read/listened/talked to all of these parties at length over the years, including people who have detransitioned. I personally know people who have detransitioned, and have also received emails from people who have detransitioned thanking me for my writings. Not a single one of these individuals expressed feeling pressured into becoming trans—on the contrary, most state that they detrainsitioned because of family or social pressure to *not* be trans (and some of these individuals later re-transitioned). Others detransitioned for personal reasons (e.g., shifts in identity, the changes didn’t suit them), but do not feel aggrieved by the trans healthcare system (and often keep a low profile because they do not want their stories to be misused by those who wish to rollback trans rights/healthcare). I have never once, in any of my writings, claimed or insinuated that these are the only detransition experiences and perspectives that matter. Rather, I have simply pointed out that the recurring exclusion of such voices from sensationalistic “detransitioner” articles like Herzog’s paints a distorted picture for trans-unaware readers.
As I said, Herzog is free to write whatever she wants. But I am disappointed that The Stranger—who initially seemed to want to republish my piece in recognition of the flaws and skewed framing of Herzog’s article—decided instead to double-down on it, while trashing two activists/writers in the process. As much as I would like my piece to reach a wider audience, I do not feel that The Stranger is genuine in its desire to address the numerous problems with the article they published, nor do I believe that they are taking transgender communities’ concerns about the article seriously. For this reason, I will not be allowing them to republish my piece.
[note: If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
Back in 2016, I detailed both the biased thinking behind, and the potential harm caused by, this notion, in my lengthy and nuanced essay Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates (and in this follow up). Herzog reached out to interview me for her The Stranger article, saying she had read my essay. I was open to it at first, until it became clear to me that she was planning to legitimize that “social contagion” theory in her piece. When Herzog's article came out last week, I penned a blogpost called Stop pitting detransitioners against happily transitioned people, in which I pointed out the skewed framing and several (albeit not all) of the misconceptions that Herzog's article forwarded.
Anyway, The Stranger editor thanked me for my blogpost and asked if they could re-publish it. The way they reached out to me seemed to indicate that they realized (in retrospect) the faults with Herzog’s article and wanted to offer their readers a counter point of view. Over the weekend, we (the editor and I) worked out the logistics, and I was told my piece would likely be published on their website on Monday (July 3rd).
Then on that Monday, I received an email from the editor mentioning that they would be running my piece first, followed by Katie Herzog’s response to the reactions she received to her article (including her response to my blogpost). This was the first that I had heard of any of this, and frankly I felt a bit blindsided by this news. I was led to believe that they wanted to publish my blogpost in recognition of the flaws in Herzog’s article, but now it seemed like they might just be setting my piece up for Herzog to knock it back down.
When I expressed my reservations about this arrangement, the editor said that instead Herzog’s piece would come out first, after which point I could decide whether to allow them the right to re-publish my blogpost.
Late on Monday, Herzog’s piece came out. It was most certainly not a thoughtful response from someone who was open to listening to marginalized voices and willing to admit to the shortcomings of their piece. On the contrary, it was an extremely vindictive retort, most of it focused on personally undermining Danni Askini and Ijeoma Oluo, two activists/writers/people who I greatly respect. Herzog is obviously free to say what she wants about other people, but I question The Stranger’s decision to allow their large news/media platform to be used to trash individuals who pen Facebook posts that critique their articles and publishing decisions.
At one point, Herzog mocks Oluo’s claim that she cited a “discredited” doctor in her article, and presumes that Oluo was referring to James Cantor (although it could just as easily have been Ray Blanchard, who Herzog also quotes); then Herzog gives Cantor several paragraphs to reply to this charge. What Herzog doesn’t mention is that both Cantor and Blanchard are considered (by both trans people and most trans health professionals) to represent the far pathologizing/conservative wing of thought on these matters. Herzog does not provide this context in her article, which contributes to the overall skewed framing. I believe that Oluo and others have every right to critique Herzog for such decisions.
Herzog’s response to my post is short—it does not at all address any of the substantive points that I make in my piece. Instead, she simply tries to dismiss me for not quoting people who detransitioned in my pieces. Of course, I don’t quote happily transitioned people, or trans health professionals, or parents of trans kids either, for the simple reason that I am an essayist, not a journalist. But I have read/listened/talked to all of these parties at length over the years, including people who have detransitioned. I personally know people who have detransitioned, and have also received emails from people who have detransitioned thanking me for my writings. Not a single one of these individuals expressed feeling pressured into becoming trans—on the contrary, most state that they detrainsitioned because of family or social pressure to *not* be trans (and some of these individuals later re-transitioned). Others detransitioned for personal reasons (e.g., shifts in identity, the changes didn’t suit them), but do not feel aggrieved by the trans healthcare system (and often keep a low profile because they do not want their stories to be misused by those who wish to rollback trans rights/healthcare). I have never once, in any of my writings, claimed or insinuated that these are the only detransition experiences and perspectives that matter. Rather, I have simply pointed out that the recurring exclusion of such voices from sensationalistic “detransitioner” articles like Herzog’s paints a distorted picture for trans-unaware readers.
As I said, Herzog is free to write whatever she wants. But I am disappointed that The Stranger—who initially seemed to want to republish my piece in recognition of the flaws and skewed framing of Herzog’s article—decided instead to double-down on it, while trashing two activists/writers in the process. As much as I would like my piece to reach a wider audience, I do not feel that The Stranger is genuine in its desire to address the numerous problems with the article they published, nor do I believe that they are taking transgender communities’ concerns about the article seriously. For this reason, I will not be allowing them to republish my piece.
[note: If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
June 30, 2017
stop pitting detransitoners against happily transitioned people
People have been asking me to respond to The Stranger's recent "The Detransitioners" article, especially because I am quoted in it. So this is a (not so brief) statement to that effect.
A year ago I wrote a long-read essay called Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates - it was my attempt to address the many issues that are usually overlooked or erased in sensationalistic & fear-mongering articles about people who detransition. Between that piece and a shorter follow up post, I felt like I said just about everything I had to say about the subject.
For those of you who haven't read it or don't want to read it, here are a few of the points that I make in that essay:
1) People detransition for a variety of personal and/or social reasons.
2) Cisgender people who are trans-antagonistic or trans-suspicious desperately want to use the existence of people who detransition as evidence that "cisgender people are being turned transgender," perhaps because of peer pressure or a lax/reckless/immoral transgender healthcare system.
3) While there may be a few instances out there in which someone who detransitions feels (at the time of transition, or in retrospect) that they were pressured into transitioning, the vast overwhelming majority of social pressure happens in the opposite direction - that is, systemic transphobia ensures that way way way more people either delay their transition or detransition in order to meet our society's cisgender norms (i.e., cissexism or cisnormativity) than there are people who feel pressure to transition.
4) Rather than pit people who detransition against happily transitioned people (as the media and anti-trans forces are wont to do), we should instead strive to "minimize unwanted irreversible changes - whether it be preventing unwanted puberties in strongly cross-gender-identified trans children, or in reducing the chances that people who will ultimately not be happy with physical transition follow down that path." And I made the case that the gender-affirming model achieves this better than gender-reparative therapies or a stricter gatekeeper system. I also argued that there should be increased information and resources for those who do decide to detransition (and the therapists/healthcare providers that work with them).
About a month ago, Katie Herzog (who wrote the recent The Stranger detransitioner piece) contacted me. Herzog mentioned reading my aforementioned essay, and asked to interview me. I gave permission to quote from my piece (since it's already out in the public sphere), and said that I might be open to answering further questions since (based on their initial email) Herzog acknowledged that this was a "fraught and complex subject."
A week or so later, Herzog emailed me to ask if I had a response 'to the idea that "social contagion" has something to do with the growing number of folks coming out as trans.' The question obviously flew in the face of the arguments I painstakingly laid out in my Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation essay (see points #3 & #4 above). I started to write a response, but it basically just reiterated all of the same points that I already made in my essay (which Herzog had already read). I had no desire to be a part of a trans = "social contagion" article, plus I was extremely busy with other matters at the time. So I decided at that point to not participate in Herzog's article (and I did not reply to Herzog's email).
Fast forward to this week: Herzog sent me an email with a link to the article and mentioning that my essay was quoted in it. I was too busy writing/publishing/getting word out about my latest essay (Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments) to read it. But in the last 24 hours or so, I've seen lots of negative reactions to it, and people are now asking me about it (since I am quoted in it). So I read it tonight, and here are my initial thoughts upon first reading:
1) Some people detransition. And their stories should be heard. We can potentially learn from their stories.
2) But only one type of detransition story seems to be told here: people who transitioned and it didn't feel right for them and/or people who detransitioned and now no longer identify as trans. But what about the many people who detransition because of societal transphobia, or because of pressure from their families/workplaces to *not* be trans? Or the numerous people who physically detransition yet still identify as trans and continue to participate in trans communities? Or what about the many people who detransitioned at some point in the past, but then later retransitioned? Where are their stories? They are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all.
3) The lack of these latter stories would not be so concerning if this was just a "Hey, some people detransition, how can we better understand their experiences, learn from them, provide them with more resources, etc." article. But Herzog's article was intentionally framed as a pitting-people-who-detransition-against-happily-transitioned-people debate, and as a lax-versus-strict gatekeeping/trans healthcare debate. And in a mainstream publication like The Stranger (where the overwhelming majority of readers are largely unaware of trans perspectives on these matters and the complexities of our lives), this will no doubt play right into the "cisgender people being turned transgender" trope that many cisgender people want to believe, and which I thoroughly deconstructed in my Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation essay.
4) Points #2 & #3 are problematic enough on their own. But they are horribly exacerbated by Herzog's legitimization of the argument that "social contagion"/"trendsgender" is possibly/likely turning people transgender. In my mind, that aspect of the article is entirely reckless. While Herzog may not personally believe it, putting it out there as a potentially legitimate theory is akin to giving equal time in an article to scientists who don't believe in climate change or who think that smoking-causes-lung-cancer is still up for debate.
Let's play a quick game: go to Google, type in "peer pressure to be", and see how it autocompletes the phrase. Here's what I found:
I tried this on multiple browsers, and had friends carry out the same search, and we all got pretty much the same outcomes more or less: "gay" and "transgender" were always in the top 5 results. While we can all agree that there is a huge amount of social pressure put on all of us to be thin or skinny or perfect, there is little to no social pressure put on people to be gay or transgender. In fact, it's the exact opposite: homophobia and transphobia constantly pressure people into *not* being gay or transgender, respectively. So why do "gay" and "transgender" repeatedly show up in autocompletes to the query "peer pressure to be"? Simply put, this is what anti-gay & anti-trans forces want people to believe, and they've created numerous articles and webpages to propagate these falsehoods.
Are there *some* people who have detransitioned who feel (at the time of their transition, or in retrospect) that they were pressured into transitioning, or swept up in a "trend" or "social contagion"? Sure, I don't doubt it - people have a wide diversity of experiences, and opinions, and interpretations of their past life decisions. But there are also people who currently identify as ex-gay who will say that they were pressured into it, or that they were duped by the homosexual agenda. In a homophobic world, writing an article about ex-gays or people whose sexual orientations shift over time is perfectly fine, but framing it in terms of 'is there a "social contagion" or "trend" that is "turning people gay" ' is downright reckless and arguably homophobic.
Trans people are a marginalized group. People who detransition are also a marginalized group. Here is my advice to all journalists who may want to write about this subject in the future: STOP PITTING MARGINALIZED GROUPS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER!
Sometimes happily transitioned people and people who detransition feel threatened by one another, and we may even express concern or hostility toward one another. The ONLY reason this happens is because YOU (i.e., the cisnormative majority) KEEP PITTING US AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. If you all weren't so dead-set on compelling us to fit into your perfect little gender-conforming world, we wouldn't have to justify our identities to you. We could explore our genders without constantly facing transphobic social pressure, or pressure to adhere to in-community ideals (which arise almost entirely in response to systemic transphobia). If it wasn't for YOUR strict adherence to cisnormativity, it wouldn't matter so much if we appear somewhat gender-non-conforming because we took our sweet time before deciding to transition, or if we ultimately decided to detransition because it wasn't quite working out for us.
So, my dear journalists, instead of framing this debate in terms of "trans people versus detransitioners," please focus on the real debate: YOU (cisnormative society, media, and institutions) versus US (the diverse trans people, people who detransition, and/or gender non-conforming people that you relentlessly exoticize and delegitimize).
[note: If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
A year ago I wrote a long-read essay called Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates - it was my attempt to address the many issues that are usually overlooked or erased in sensationalistic & fear-mongering articles about people who detransition. Between that piece and a shorter follow up post, I felt like I said just about everything I had to say about the subject.
For those of you who haven't read it or don't want to read it, here are a few of the points that I make in that essay:
1) People detransition for a variety of personal and/or social reasons.
2) Cisgender people who are trans-antagonistic or trans-suspicious desperately want to use the existence of people who detransition as evidence that "cisgender people are being turned transgender," perhaps because of peer pressure or a lax/reckless/immoral transgender healthcare system.
3) While there may be a few instances out there in which someone who detransitions feels (at the time of transition, or in retrospect) that they were pressured into transitioning, the vast overwhelming majority of social pressure happens in the opposite direction - that is, systemic transphobia ensures that way way way more people either delay their transition or detransition in order to meet our society's cisgender norms (i.e., cissexism or cisnormativity) than there are people who feel pressure to transition.
4) Rather than pit people who detransition against happily transitioned people (as the media and anti-trans forces are wont to do), we should instead strive to "minimize unwanted irreversible changes - whether it be preventing unwanted puberties in strongly cross-gender-identified trans children, or in reducing the chances that people who will ultimately not be happy with physical transition follow down that path." And I made the case that the gender-affirming model achieves this better than gender-reparative therapies or a stricter gatekeeper system. I also argued that there should be increased information and resources for those who do decide to detransition (and the therapists/healthcare providers that work with them).
About a month ago, Katie Herzog (who wrote the recent The Stranger detransitioner piece) contacted me. Herzog mentioned reading my aforementioned essay, and asked to interview me. I gave permission to quote from my piece (since it's already out in the public sphere), and said that I might be open to answering further questions since (based on their initial email) Herzog acknowledged that this was a "fraught and complex subject."
A week or so later, Herzog emailed me to ask if I had a response 'to the idea that "social contagion" has something to do with the growing number of folks coming out as trans.' The question obviously flew in the face of the arguments I painstakingly laid out in my Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation essay (see points #3 & #4 above). I started to write a response, but it basically just reiterated all of the same points that I already made in my essay (which Herzog had already read). I had no desire to be a part of a trans = "social contagion" article, plus I was extremely busy with other matters at the time. So I decided at that point to not participate in Herzog's article (and I did not reply to Herzog's email).
Fast forward to this week: Herzog sent me an email with a link to the article and mentioning that my essay was quoted in it. I was too busy writing/publishing/getting word out about my latest essay (Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments) to read it. But in the last 24 hours or so, I've seen lots of negative reactions to it, and people are now asking me about it (since I am quoted in it). So I read it tonight, and here are my initial thoughts upon first reading:
1) Some people detransition. And their stories should be heard. We can potentially learn from their stories.
2) But only one type of detransition story seems to be told here: people who transitioned and it didn't feel right for them and/or people who detransitioned and now no longer identify as trans. But what about the many people who detransition because of societal transphobia, or because of pressure from their families/workplaces to *not* be trans? Or the numerous people who physically detransition yet still identify as trans and continue to participate in trans communities? Or what about the many people who detransitioned at some point in the past, but then later retransitioned? Where are their stories? They are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all.
3) The lack of these latter stories would not be so concerning if this was just a "Hey, some people detransition, how can we better understand their experiences, learn from them, provide them with more resources, etc." article. But Herzog's article was intentionally framed as a pitting-people-who-detransition-against-happily-transitioned-people debate, and as a lax-versus-strict gatekeeping/trans healthcare debate. And in a mainstream publication like The Stranger (where the overwhelming majority of readers are largely unaware of trans perspectives on these matters and the complexities of our lives), this will no doubt play right into the "cisgender people being turned transgender" trope that many cisgender people want to believe, and which I thoroughly deconstructed in my Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation essay.
4) Points #2 & #3 are problematic enough on their own. But they are horribly exacerbated by Herzog's legitimization of the argument that "social contagion"/"trendsgender" is possibly/likely turning people transgender. In my mind, that aspect of the article is entirely reckless. While Herzog may not personally believe it, putting it out there as a potentially legitimate theory is akin to giving equal time in an article to scientists who don't believe in climate change or who think that smoking-causes-lung-cancer is still up for debate.
Let's play a quick game: go to Google, type in "peer pressure to be", and see how it autocompletes the phrase. Here's what I found:
I tried this on multiple browsers, and had friends carry out the same search, and we all got pretty much the same outcomes more or less: "gay" and "transgender" were always in the top 5 results. While we can all agree that there is a huge amount of social pressure put on all of us to be thin or skinny or perfect, there is little to no social pressure put on people to be gay or transgender. In fact, it's the exact opposite: homophobia and transphobia constantly pressure people into *not* being gay or transgender, respectively. So why do "gay" and "transgender" repeatedly show up in autocompletes to the query "peer pressure to be"? Simply put, this is what anti-gay & anti-trans forces want people to believe, and they've created numerous articles and webpages to propagate these falsehoods.
Are there *some* people who have detransitioned who feel (at the time of their transition, or in retrospect) that they were pressured into transitioning, or swept up in a "trend" or "social contagion"? Sure, I don't doubt it - people have a wide diversity of experiences, and opinions, and interpretations of their past life decisions. But there are also people who currently identify as ex-gay who will say that they were pressured into it, or that they were duped by the homosexual agenda. In a homophobic world, writing an article about ex-gays or people whose sexual orientations shift over time is perfectly fine, but framing it in terms of 'is there a "social contagion" or "trend" that is "turning people gay" ' is downright reckless and arguably homophobic.
Trans people are a marginalized group. People who detransition are also a marginalized group. Here is my advice to all journalists who may want to write about this subject in the future: STOP PITTING MARGINALIZED GROUPS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER!
Sometimes happily transitioned people and people who detransition feel threatened by one another, and we may even express concern or hostility toward one another. The ONLY reason this happens is because YOU (i.e., the cisnormative majority) KEEP PITTING US AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. If you all weren't so dead-set on compelling us to fit into your perfect little gender-conforming world, we wouldn't have to justify our identities to you. We could explore our genders without constantly facing transphobic social pressure, or pressure to adhere to in-community ideals (which arise almost entirely in response to systemic transphobia). If it wasn't for YOUR strict adherence to cisnormativity, it wouldn't matter so much if we appear somewhat gender-non-conforming because we took our sweet time before deciding to transition, or if we ultimately decided to detransition because it wasn't quite working out for us.
So, my dear journalists, instead of framing this debate in terms of "trans people versus detransitioners," please focus on the real debate: YOU (cisnormative society, media, and institutions) versus US (the diverse trans people, people who detransition, and/or gender non-conforming people that you relentlessly exoticize and delegitimize).
[note: If you appreciate this post and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]
June 29, 2017
trans women are women! plus free book chapters & a NY Times interview
Yesterday I sent out my
latest email update
- you can read it via the link and/or
sign up for my email list here
. Here are some of the highlights:I was interviewed in the New York Times as part of their Pride 2017 coverage - the article is called Julia Serano, Transfeminist Thinker, Talks Trans-Misogyny . You can read it via that link; if it's behind a paywall, here is a PDF version.
I wrote a new Medium essay called Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments . If you like the piece, please click the "heart" icon at the bottom of the article - that way more people on Medium will see it!
I recently made three chapters from my latest book Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism freely available for download - all of them challenge psychological theories and diagnoses that needlessly pathologize transgender people (which is why I wanted to make them readily accessible). Find out how to download them (btw, the linked post also includes excerpts from my novel-in-progress).
I am able to make these book chapters and the Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments piece freely available thanks to my Patreon supporters . If you support me there (for as little as $1 per month) you'll have access to behind-the-scenes updates & polls, and unpublished writings & recordings. If you pledge at higher levels, you may be eligible for rewards such as free e-books, signed copies of any of my previous books, and/or choosing the topic of a future blogpost. So if you appreciate my work, please consider supporting me there !
May 16, 2017
my first patron-requested post on Patreon!
As you may (or may not) know, last year I joined the crowdfunding site Patreon. People who support me there (for as little as $1 per month) can read almost all of the posts, which include behind-the-scenes updates, polls on what I should write about, plus unpublished writings & recordings. People who pledge at higher levels may be eligible for rewards, such as free e-books and/or signed copies of any of my previous books (depending upon the level) - more details can be found here.
At certain pledge levels, I offer the reward of writing a blogpost about any subject of a patron's choosing (within reason). Well, today I published my first ever patron-requested post - it's on the topic of passing and employment post-transition. It's a public post, so even if you're not a supporter, you can read it via the link.
If you appreciate it and/or my writings more generally, please consider supporting me there!
At certain pledge levels, I offer the reward of writing a blogpost about any subject of a patron's choosing (within reason). Well, today I published my first ever patron-requested post - it's on the topic of passing and employment post-transition. It's a public post, so even if you're not a supporter, you can read it via the link.
If you appreciate it and/or my writings more generally, please consider supporting me there!
May 9, 2017
regarding that transracial/transgender Hypatia article & accusations of "witch hunts"
As some of you may know by now, about a month or so ago, the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia published an article by Rachel Tuvel called "In Defense of Transracialism." I have not read the article (it is behind a paywall), but by all accounts it draws parallels between "transracial" and transgender, and makes the case that, if we accept the latter, then we should accept the former.
Tuvel's article was widely critiqued by academics (and to a lesser degree, activists) with knowledge of the fields of critical race theory and transgender studies for reasons explained here by Shannon Winnubst (who is one of the co-authors/signers of an open letter to Hypatia asking the journal to retract the paper). In response to the letter, Hypatia apologized for publishing it (although, as of the time I write this, they have not retracted it). Hypatia apologized (whereas other journals likely would not have) because of its dedication to "pluralist feminist inquiry" and because the journal views itself as "an important site for the publication of scholarship long-considered marginal in philosophy." As Trans Lady Academic points out, the response stemmed from "commitments that several editors at Hypatia itself had laid out to avoiding the exploitative and anthropological gaze."
People can have differing views on whether or not this particular paper should be retracted. I will tell you that, in my many years as a biologist (not to mention my familiarity with other academic disciplines), it is not uncommon for highly controversial papers to result in open letters to the journal editors, sometimes requesting apologies or retractions. Sometimes journals will respond to these requests and/or publish counterarguments and rebuttals to the paper in question in a subsequent issue. [note: I discuss this more in this Twitter thread.]
Regardless of what you think about the specifics of this case, what happened next is unconscionable: Jesse Singal of NY Mag (who has a penchant for writing high profile articles that depict transgender activists as out-of-control and anti-science, and with whom I've had previous run-ins) decided to write an alarmist article decrying the open letter to Hypatia as a "witch hunt." This helped to inspire a "pile on," as pundits far and wide who couldn't give two-shits about feminist philosophy weighed in on the matter, and attempted to portray this as yet another liberal-attack-on-free-speech (a position that I've previously critiqued as disingenuous and hypocritical).
Historically, "witch hunts" refer to when the masses, consumed by moral panic, attack people on the margins based on the assumption that these marginalized groups will infect or contaminate greater society with their wayward or evil beliefs and practices. So it seems extremely farcical (not to mention scaremongering) for people in the dominant majority to complain that one of their own kind is the victim of a "witch hunt" solely because a few people in the marginalized minority have challenged or critiqued their views.
Anyway, Noah Berlatsky has written a piece (in which I am interviewed) explaining the many problems with Singal's (and other's) rendition of this story. Also, in the last few days, I've written several twitter essays/threads about the backlash to the open letter to Hypatia - if you're interested in reading them, here they are (click the tweet to see the entire thread).
Here is the first thread, which I wrote upon learning that Jesse Singal cited me in his "witch hunt" piece:
Next (within one of Berlatsky's threads), I discuss how/why mainstream outlets don't care about trans perspectives on these matters:
Final thread discussing asymmetry in who is accused of attacking free speech/academic freedom in these cases:
Tuvel's article was widely critiqued by academics (and to a lesser degree, activists) with knowledge of the fields of critical race theory and transgender studies for reasons explained here by Shannon Winnubst (who is one of the co-authors/signers of an open letter to Hypatia asking the journal to retract the paper). In response to the letter, Hypatia apologized for publishing it (although, as of the time I write this, they have not retracted it). Hypatia apologized (whereas other journals likely would not have) because of its dedication to "pluralist feminist inquiry" and because the journal views itself as "an important site for the publication of scholarship long-considered marginal in philosophy." As Trans Lady Academic points out, the response stemmed from "commitments that several editors at Hypatia itself had laid out to avoiding the exploitative and anthropological gaze."
People can have differing views on whether or not this particular paper should be retracted. I will tell you that, in my many years as a biologist (not to mention my familiarity with other academic disciplines), it is not uncommon for highly controversial papers to result in open letters to the journal editors, sometimes requesting apologies or retractions. Sometimes journals will respond to these requests and/or publish counterarguments and rebuttals to the paper in question in a subsequent issue. [note: I discuss this more in this Twitter thread.]
Regardless of what you think about the specifics of this case, what happened next is unconscionable: Jesse Singal of NY Mag (who has a penchant for writing high profile articles that depict transgender activists as out-of-control and anti-science, and with whom I've had previous run-ins) decided to write an alarmist article decrying the open letter to Hypatia as a "witch hunt." This helped to inspire a "pile on," as pundits far and wide who couldn't give two-shits about feminist philosophy weighed in on the matter, and attempted to portray this as yet another liberal-attack-on-free-speech (a position that I've previously critiqued as disingenuous and hypocritical).
Historically, "witch hunts" refer to when the masses, consumed by moral panic, attack people on the margins based on the assumption that these marginalized groups will infect or contaminate greater society with their wayward or evil beliefs and practices. So it seems extremely farcical (not to mention scaremongering) for people in the dominant majority to complain that one of their own kind is the victim of a "witch hunt" solely because a few people in the marginalized minority have challenged or critiqued their views.
Anyway, Noah Berlatsky has written a piece (in which I am interviewed) explaining the many problems with Singal's (and other's) rendition of this story. Also, in the last few days, I've written several twitter essays/threads about the backlash to the open letter to Hypatia - if you're interested in reading them, here they are (click the tweet to see the entire thread).
Here is the first thread, which I wrote upon learning that Jesse Singal cited me in his "witch hunt" piece:
apparently Jesse Singal wrote an article that people are upset about. yet again. I have no desire to "get into the weeds" on this...— Julia Serano (@JuliaSerano) May 3, 2017
Next (within one of Berlatsky's threads), I discuss how/why mainstream outlets don't care about trans perspectives on these matters:
@nberlat in this passage (from Outspoken: https://t.co/SMyyMzUBZT), I explain why cis people assume that they're de facto experts on trans issues pic.twitter.com/ZboJ7VMqt0— Julia Serano (@JuliaSerano) May 6, 2017
Final thread discussing asymmetry in who is accused of attacking free speech/academic freedom in these cases:
#Tuvel scandal in a nutshell: academics/pundits questioning and/or ignoring #transgender & #POC perspectives = academic freedom/free speech— Julia Serano (@JuliaSerano) May 5, 2017
