Julia Serano's Blog, page 8

Outspoken is a Lambda Literary Award finalist!

Earlier this week I learned that my latest book, Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism, is a Lambda Literary Award finalist in the category of Transgender Nonfiction! It is the first time one of my books has become a Lambda finalist, so I am excited by this news, and extend my congrats to all the other finalists!

For those who haven't seen the book yet, Outspoken compiles 48 of my trans-themed pieces from over the last decade-plus, including many of my early slam poems, essays and manifestos written contemporaneously with Whipping Girl and Excluded (including chapters originally intended for those books), articles challenging DSM diagnoses and the psychopathologization of trans people & gender variance, plus some of my recent writings addressing differences within trans communities and approaches to activism.

Outspoken is available (in paperback & e-book) at Amazon & other online outlets (a complete list can be found here), and bookstores & libraries can purchase it through Ingram. If you belong to, or write for, a media outlet (print, webzine, blog, etc.) and you are interested in reviewing or publishing excerpts from the book, please contact me and I can provide you copies.

In the coming months, I plan to publish blogposts covering each section of the book (including sneak-peaks & excerpts). But in the meantime, here are some Outspoken-related pages you can explore:

my Outspoken webpage includes reviews of the book, an excerpt of the Introduction, and a look at the Table of Contents.I created a free online trans-, gender-, sexuality-, activism-themed glossary for Outspoken.watch videos of me performing some of the transgender-themed slam poems that are included in Outspoken (more will be uploaded soon!).Outspoken includes two chapters originally intended for Whipping Girl, but which were not included in the final book. One of these was made available to my Patreon supporters (which you can read with a $2 pledge).Finally, if you have read Outspoken and enjoyed it, please consider leaving a review of it on Amazon, Goodreads, and other sites (this really helps with garnering attention for the book).
Thanks for listening! -j.

on Milo, the limits of free speech, and who gets thrown under the bus

I recently published an essay on Medium called Free Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance. In that piece, as well as in a follow up essay I published yesterday morning, I touched upon recent debates regarding whether Milo Yiannopoulos should be granted a platform to speak at universities and other high profile venues. I argued that Yiannopoulos has a long history of inciting hatred and harassment campaigns toward women, people of color, trans folks, immigrants, and other marginalized groups. I invoked Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance" to make the case that we should not tolerate people (such as Yiannopoulos) who attempt to use their "free speech" in order to suppress and silence others.

While many people (especially those who have witnessed the real harm Yiannopoulos has caused over the last several years) agree with this position, others have taken a free speech absolutist stance that can be paraphrased as follows: "Yiannopoulos may say horrible things that I don't agree with, but I support colleges and others who offer him a platform to speak (and you should too!) because FREE SPEECH." (or something like that.)

But today, we learned the true hypocrisy of the "let Milo speak because FREE SPEECH" crowd. Yesterday, audio/video clips surfaced wherein Yiannopoulos suggests that teenage boys are old enough to consent to sex with older men. In the wake of that revelation, the American Conservative Union, who had previously invited Yiannopoulos to speak at their upcoming CPAC conference, rescinded that invitation. Simon & Schuster, who had been vigorously defending its decision to sign Yiannopoulos to a huge $250,000 book deal, announced that it was canceling that deal. Even employees at the alt-right/white nationalist news outlet Breitbart (where Yiannopoulos is a senior editor) have threatened to quit if he is not fired.

In other words, the same people who were arguing for, or even championing, Yiannopoulos's FREE SPEECH a few days ago, are now disassociating themselves from him. They are, in effect, "no platforming" him.

It seems that FREE SPEECH isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

And I could have told you that. In fact, I did! In my aforementioned Free Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance essay. As I say there, and as Stanley Fish discusses in this interview (and to borrow his line), there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. Rather, there is speech that we (as individuals, or as a society) are willing to tolerate, and speech that we deem to be beyond the pale. Every single one of us has a hard limit -- a point at which we will exclaim, "I simply cannot tolerate that!" For certain Breitbart employees, the American Conservative Union, Simon & Schuster, and journalist Kurt Eichenwald (whose tweet initially inspired this post), that hard limit is apparently advocating (or seeming to advocate) adult-teen relationships.

I have no problems with any of these groups refusing to tolerate Yiannopoulos's comment. And I have no qualms with their decisions to "no platform" him over this issue. But I do want to point out that, by drawing the line there, the American Conservative Union, Simon & Schuster, Kurt Eichenwald, and others, are implicitly saying that EVERYTHING ELSE that Yiannopoulos has done up until this point -- his long history of blatant racism, misogyny, and transphobia, and his penchant for doxxing, harassing, and intimidating marginalized individuals online and during his talks -- all of that is a-okay. Absolutely tolerable. Within the boundaries of normal discourse, in their eyes.

If that's how you feel, then fine. It's your decision. BUT FUCKING OWN IT! Stop spouting nonsense like, "Well, I don't agree with what he says, but I support his right to say it." THAT IS BULLSHIT! What you are ACTUALLY saying is: "I have chosen to TOLERATE what Yiannopoulos is saying. And if that includes blatant racism, misogyny, transphobia, doxxing, harassing, intimidating, etc., then so be it."

As the aphorism goes: It's a free country. That means that we each get to decide what we are willing to tolerate and what we will not. Isn't that wonderful!!! But that also means that we should be accountable for where we decide to draw that line. And if we are going to take an unwavering stand against speech acts that we feel may harm, injure, or silence some vulnerable group (e.g., teenage boys), then we should also be willing to admit that we are not standing up for everyone. We must admit that there are other vulnerable groups who may also harmed, injured, or silenced by speech acts, who we are effectively throwing under the bus.

[note: If you appreciate this essay and want to see more like it, please check out my Patreon page]

my San Francisco Women's March Speech

This last weekend, I had the honor of speaking at the San Francisco Women's March. It was an amazing event with an unbelievable turnout, estimated to be between 100K - 150K people. I have never seen a crowd that big before.

The speech I gave was called Empathy Politics - you can read it via the link. It's on Medium, so the more "hearts" it gets (icon at bottom of the page), the more likely it will appear on other people's Medium feeds.

Part of the speech explains why we can defeat Trumpism, because we are the majority in this country. The second half counters recent debates about "Identity Politics" (which I re-frame as "Empathy Politics"), which I believe should be an important part of social justice activism moving forward.

You can listen to a live recording of me giving the speech, which I have made available on my Patreon site - it is a public link (not all of them are). If you like it, please consider supporting me there!

Finally, The Bay Area Reporter interviewed me and other March speakers about our participation in the event.

first Outspoken review! (and future excerpts, reviews, and interviews)

As you may (or may not) know, at the end of 2016, I released my third book, Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism. It's a collection of forty-eight chapters spanning the last decade-plus, including my early slam poems and spoken word, essays and manifestos written contemporaneously with my previous books Whipping Girl and Excluded, plus my recent writings addressing differences within trans communities and activism.

I self-published Outspoken (on my own imprint Switch Hitter Press) and (for personal reasons) I haven't been able to do much promotion for the book until now. In the coming weeks, I plan to publish numerous excerpts from the book, and I've already started uploading YouTube videos for some of the slam poems that appear in the book! (More will be released later this week...)

If you are a writer and/or run some sort of zine, podcast, website, etc., and are interested in potentially reviewing the book and/or interviewing me about it, feel free contact me and I can try to get you a copy!


In the meantime, last week I learned that the first Outspoken book review (that I'm aware of) was published: Outspoken By Julia Serano: The Evolution of a Transgender Feminist by Jeffry Iovannone and appearing in Radical Notion. You can read the entire article via the link - for the rest of you, here are three short blurbs from the review:

Serano is known for her clear prose, well-reasoned arguments, and ability to straddle and unify academic and activist spaces within her writing, and Outspoken is no exception. Both new and returning readers will profit from this collection. 

Though Outspoken often reads as a theoretical and challenging (in the best way possible) work, it is also incredibly intimate and personal . . . Many of the pieces in Outspoken simultaneously invite the reader into Serano’s life while critiquing the tendency, often perpetuated by mainstream media, to view trans people’s lives through a lens of voyeurism. Though Outspoken is not a memoir in a literal sense, it presents the making of a visionary writer and activist who has made peace with her identity and has arrived at a nuanced and self-reflective understanding of social justice work that continues to evolve.

Serano’s discussion of activism might be the most useful aspect of Outspoken given our current social and political climate in the United States. Her fearlessness in critiquing and generously examining social justice issues, such as cultural appropriation, the polarizing term “tranny,” activists’ use of language to shift gender norms, and the pros and cons of “identity politics,” from all possible perspectives is applause worthy. She is highly critical not only of arguments leveled against social justice advocates from the outside, but, more importantly, tactics used within activist spaces themselves that are potentially divisive and lead to smaller, less effective movements.

Outspoken is available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes Books, Kobo, Smashwords, and other online retailers. The book is also available to bookstores and libraries via Ingram.

Blaming Identity Politics & Political Correctness for Trump's Election

I just wrote an essay called: Prejudice, “Political Correctness,” and the Normalization of Donald Trump. It is my response to all the political center & left pundits who think we should abandon identity politics, "political correctness," and social justice activism in the wake of the latest U.S. election.

If you like it, please share widely! Also, it's on Medium, so the more "hearts" it gets (icon at bottom), the more likely it will appear on other people's Medium feeds. So please "heart" it if you like it too!

Finally, this essay was made possible by my Patreon supporters — if you liked this piece and want to see more like it, please consider supporting me there.

Enjoy! -j.

Julia November update: my new book Outspoken is out, plus other stuff!

A few days ago, I sent out my latest email update. The big news in it is that my third book, Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism has just been released! It collects forty-eight of my previously unpublished or difficult to access trans-themed writings, including my early slam poems and spoken word, essays and manifestos written contemporaneously with my previous books Whipping Girl & Excluded, plus my recent work addressing differences within trans communities and activism.

Check out the Outspoken webpage to view the book’s Table of Contents, read part of the Introduction & other book excerpts, and explore the online trans/gender glossary that accompanies the book. At the moment, paperback books can be purchased at Amazon, and it will be available at other retailers & for bookstore/library purchasing (through Ingram) very soon (so stay tuned!). E-books can be purchased at/for Amazon/Kindle, Barnes & Noble/Nook, iTunes Books, Kobo, Smashwords, and other outlets.

Another item of interest in the email update is the official release of the Whipping Girl 2nd edition audiobook! It is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Audible, and other outlets.

The update also includes tidbits on my various other projects, plus helpful post-election resources for trans people.

You can read the update in all its glory here.

If you want future Julia updates emailed directly to you, please sign up for my email list.

enjoy! -j.

three interviews, an audiobook, and a big Outspoken sneak-peak!

Hello, this is my first post here in a bit, as I've been in the throes of finally completing & releasing my third book, Outspoken: A Decade of Transgender Activism and Trans Feminism. It will be available for purchase on Amazon no later than Wednesday, November 9th, with e-book formats and bookstore/library purchasing (through Ingram) up and running shortly thereafter.

If you are interested in "sneak-peaks" of the book, I encourage you to follow me on Patreon, a crowdfunding platform where (for pledges as low as $1 a month) you can get behind-the-scenes updates on what I am working on, access to many of my in-progress & unpublished writings, plus other goodies -- all the details are explained here.

There are currently two Outspoken excerpts exclusively available on my Patreon site:
1) A long-lost chapter originally intended for Whipping Girl
2) Sneak-peak: the last essay of Outspoken and online glossary

There are additional exclusive posts on my Patreon page, so I hope you consider following me there!

In other news, I've participated in a few podcast/internet interviews over the last month. Feel free to check them out:
1) The BiCast, October 10, 2016
2) Live With Bria, October 23, 2016
3) PDX Trans Pride Radio w/ DJCaptiveKatt, October 24, 2016

And finally, I am happy to announce that Whipping Girl second edition will soon be available on audiobook! My publisher approached me about it over the summer, and I was super-excited about recording it (which I did in September, as you can see by the photos above). It is not out yet, but I did notice that it's available for pre-order on Amazon and likely elsewhere.

If you want to keep up on all these upcoming releases and other news, please consider signing up for my email list and/or supporting me on Patreon!

Julia update: new writings, upcoming events, & Patreon!

So yesterday I sent out my latest email update. In it, I discuss:

1) new articles
2) Patreon
3) upcoming events
4) consider bringing me to your college campus!
5) past & future books
6) new additions to my website

You can read the update in all its glory here.

If you want future Julia updates emailed directly to you, please sign up for my email list.

enjoy! -j.

Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation (a follow up)

If you aren't aware of it already, last week I published an essay called Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates on Medium. It is a long-read, and my thorough response to recent mainstream op-eds and think-pieces coming out either for gender-reparative therapies and/or against gender-affirming approaches to transgender and gender non-conforming children. If you like the piece, be sure to recommend it (by clicking the "heart" logo at the bottom-left of the article) - the more recommends it gets, the more likely it will appear in other Medium readers' feeds!

In addition, German Lopez of Vox.com interviewed me about my Medium piece - you can read that in the article: The debate about transgender children and “detransitioning” is really about transphobia.

I received a lot of positive feedback about the piece. And I can tell that it made some waves outside of the trans/LGBTQ+/activism bubble by the numerous vitriolic & blatantly anti-trans responses I have received - sadly, this is par for the course. However, there are two categories of responses I received that addressed aspects of the article that I perhaps could have explained better, so I want to reply to those here.

First, a few people took issue with the section of my piece wherein I called the "80% desistance" statistic into question - many of these were admonishments along the lines of "well that's what the science says!" I'm not sure who these people are, but they are obviously not scientists. Or at least not good ones. Science is chockfull of debates where there is no clearcut answer, just pieces of evidence that people on either side of an issue can cite (or discount). The 80% desistance statistic is one such piece of evidence, and in my piece I linked to numerous other articles that point out the multiple assumptions and potential inaccuracies that have gone into how that number is derived (add to those this new critique from Kelley Winters). Furthermore, while I didn't link to them in my Medium piece, in my Vox.com interview I mentioned several research studies (specifically, this and this and this) that support the gender-affirming position.

It would be irresponsible of me to point to those last three studies (which demonstrate that many children and adolescents who transition have good outcomes and stable identities) and suggest that therefore *all* gender non-conforming children should transition. Just because transitioning is a good outcome for some does not mean that it's necessarily a good outcome for all. But by same logic, people who point to the 80% desistance statistic to argue that *no children* should transition (which is the case many are making) are also being irresponsible. The key is to figure out which children should follow which path, which is exactly what the gender-affirming approach attempts to do.

Second, some people have suggested that I was discounting or erasing the experiences of those who detransition in my piece. This was most certainly not what I was trying to do: I did not at any point attempt to speak on behalf of people who detransition, nor did I suggest that such individuals should not talk about their experiences - they are most certainly free to share their stories with the world. Perhaps I could have made this clearer, but my article was never intended to be *about* people who detransition or who desist per se; it was about how trans-antagonistic and trans-suspicious commentators evoke these concepts in order to forward their political agendas. Even if there weren't any actual people who detransition, these commentators would no doubt simply invent stories about detransitioning (as they did recently with Caitlyn Jenner), much like how they invent stories about transgender sexual predators in bathrooms in order to promote their agendas.

But of course (unlike transgender bathroom predators), people who detransition do exist - I have met and had conversations with quite a number of them, and have read their stories and perspectives on the internet and elsewhere. What I can say (based on this information) is that their experiences are diverse: some detransition more for visceral or personal reasons, while for others it had more to do with constantly facing transphobia; some remain detransitioned, while others may re-transition at some later point; some who detransition continue to identify as transgender in some way, while others come to identify as non-trans or cisgender; some detransition in response to a change or shift in their gender identity or understanding of gender, while others come to a realization that they were never trans to begin with; some look back on their decision to transition and come to the conclusion that they were too impulsive, or mistakenly felt that transitioning would solve all their life problems, while others blame their trans health providers for insufficiently questioning them and/or for possibly pushing them toward transition. I have heard every single one of these views expressed, although admittedly none of us knows the relative frequency of each. And there is likely some truth in all of these experiences, at least for certain individuals, in certain instances. 

In my article, I said: "I would love to see more support from trans communities (and from health providers) for people who choose to detransition." Specifically, while many trans health providers are trained in how to best help and serve trans clients, they are not similarly informed with regards to how to support and care for people who detransition (both with regards to therapy and potential physical interventions) - I have heard this complaint from people who detransition on many occasions. 

I had two people suggest that, in my article, I was discounting the difficulties that people who detransition often face because of irreversible changes in their body (due to hormones or surgeries) that are now incongruent with their identified gender. I never directly discussed this in the piece, so I'm not sure why people would come to this conclusion. As someone who has experienced irreversible changes in my body that I wish never occurred (i.e., hormonal changes during my puberty), I would never trivialize or dismiss analogous experiences in people who detransition. I think that most of us who are personally involved in these matters (as opposed to the many outsider commentators who were the target of my article) would agree that the ideal scenario would be 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. As I stressed repeatedly throughout my article, this will most likely be achieved through individualized approaches; in contrast, one-size-fits-all approaches will fail many of these individuals.

Finally, most of the people who have detransitioned that I have personally known are not against access to trans-related healthcare more generally - they recognize that transitioning helps many people lead happy and healthy lives, even if it wasn't the right answer for them. However, other people who have detransitioned have come out against allowing trans children the possibility of transitioning, or in favor of greatly restricting or eliminating the means to transition for trans adults. Having personally lived through the old gatekeeper system and seeing the harm it inflicted on trans communities (as I describe in Chapter 7 of Whipping Girl), I believe such policies would do far more harm than good. So I am both scientifically and politically opposed to such positions, regardless of whether the individuals promoting them have experienced detransition or not. I'm sure that some of these individuals will continue to claim (based on my opposition to greatly restricting/eliminating access to the means to transition) that I "disrespect" or "refuse to listen" to people who have detransitioned. To the contrary, I do respect and have listened to people who have detransitioned, enough so to know that you do not speak for all people who have detransitioned. You are of course entitled to your opinions, and many of us are open to hearing your thoughts on how to reduce the number of unsuccessful or unwanted transitions. But if you are forwarding a one-size-fits-all approach that flat-out prevents other people from happily transitioning, then we simply do not see eye to eye on this important issue.

Activism, Language, and Differences of Opinion (a compilation of essays)

Activists of various stripes will often disagree with one another (as well as with the mainstream public) regarding what ideas and strategies are useful and productive, versus which may be self-defeating or destructive. Notably, many of these debates tend to be centered on language—for instance, is the word or phrase in question liberating, or acceptable, or anachronistic, or problematic, or downright derogatory.
While most people who participate in these debates champion a specific cause (e.g., being “for” or “against” a specific activist tactic or terminology), I have become increasingly interested in understanding the underlying standpoints and reasoning that lead people to adopt these disparate positions, and chronicling how rigid one-size-fits-all stances on these matters may erase or exclude the voices of many people who have a stake in the issue.
I have written extensively about this subject in my 2013 book Excluded: Making Feminist andQueer Movements More Inclusive (the linked-to page includes excerpts from the book). Here, I will compile some of my subsequent essays related to this topic (with links when available). They are organized into the following sections:
Different Vantage Points. These essays analyze the differing underlying backgrounds, beliefs, and rationales that often lead activists to come to very different conclusions regarding whether something (e.g., a word, action, media depiction, or person) constitutes discrimination/marginalization/oppression (or not).
The Activist Language Merry-Go-Round. Activists often make the case that particular terms related to a minority/marginalized group are either “good” or “bad” (the former being championed, the latter dismissed as derogatory). But these sorts of claims are often linguistically naive and potentially exclusionary. However, the most commonplace rebuttals (e.g., counter-claims that slurs are no big deal, or that complaints about slurs constitute “censorship”) are even more linguistically naive and potentially exclusionary. These essays are my attempt to engage in serious yet nuanced discussions about language, and the harm that such words may (or may not) inflict.
Inflexibility and Erasure. When activists do reach varying conclusions regarding language or strategy, opposing sides may accuse the other of “being oppressive” and/or “reinforcing oppression.” These essays highlight examples of this phenomenon, and consider how such accusations often promote exclusion and deny the diversity of the marginalized group in question.
*note*: Many of these essays focus on issues and events within transgender activism. This is not because these debates are more prevalent or pervasive in trans communities (if you examine various past and current activist movements, you will find that they are not). Rather, this simply reflects the fact that transgender issues have been a central (albeit not the only) focus of my own activism. While some of what follows may be transgender-specific, I believe that much of it likely has import for thinking about other forms of activism, and social justice movements more generally.
Debunking the “Political Correctness” Meme
How to Write a “Political Correctness Run Amok” Article – a satirical piece meant to illustrate the many glaring holes in reasoning displayed by most contemporary mainstream articles and op-eds decrying “political correctness.”
That Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore (and it’s not because of “political correctness”) – this piece points out how accusations of  “political correctness” are inherently one-sided and designed to protect the status quo. They also fail to acknowledge that what’s considered to be “status quo” (in this case, with regards to comedy) is always evolving.
Ravishly interview by Noah Berlatsky – this interview occurred in the wake of several high profile articles decrying “political correctness” within liberal and activist settings. In addition to (once again) critiquing that meme, I go on to discuss the very real problems associated with what is often called “call-out culture.” Specifically, I offer my thoughts on why “call outs” occur so frequently within activist settings, and why (even when well-intended) they sometimes result in erasure and exclusion (rather than promoting inclusion).     
Different Vantage Points
Cissexism and Cis Privilege Revisited – Part 2: Reconciling Disparate Uses of the Cis/Trans Distinction – this piece compares and contrasts two common yet disparate approaches to activism: “decentering the binary” and “reverse discourses.” While both approaches may be useful in challenging marginalization, the reverse discourse strategy is far more inflexible and exclusionary—in fact, I contend that most legitimate complaints about activist language and stances are actually critiques of the reverse discourse approach.
Considering Trans and Queer Appropriation– Members of the same marginalized/minority group may differ in whether they believe that a certain word or action (when expressed by the dominant majority) is “appropriative” or constitutes “appropriation.” In this essay, I examine the differing backgrounds and beliefs that likely lead these individuals to reach such different conclusions in this regard.
A Personal History of the “T-word” (and some more general reflections on language and activism) – many arguments within activism center on language: Is a particular term deemed appropriate or offensive? Is it better to reclaim or eliminate potentially offensive words? Who gets to make these determinations? In this essay, I focus on one specific controversial term (i.e., the word “tranny”) and describe the myriad stances and arguments that have been made both for and against this word over the years.
The Activist Language Merry-Go-Round
I spend the second half of the aforementioned “T-word” article (in the section entitled “Words don’t kill people, people kill words”) describing (what I call) the “Activist Language Merry-Go-Round,” wherein members of a marginalized/minority group will engage in countless rounds of critiquing existing terms and proposing new ones (which will then subsequently come under scrutiny themselves). While all participants in these debates may have the best of intentions (i.e., challenging the marginalization the group faces), there are often unintended negative consequences, which I outline in great detail.
On the “activist language merry-go-round,” Stephen Pinker’s “euphemism treadmill,” and “political correctness” more generally– people in the mainstream (e.g., Pinker) will sometimes complain about the Activist Language Merry-Go-Round, dismissing it as “pointless,” or as an expression of “political correctness” or “censorship.” In this essay, I compare and contrast my critique of the Activist Language Merry-Go-Round with such mainstream accounts.
Regarding Trans* and Transgenderism– this essay describes two recent cases of trans-related terms (i.e., the ones explicitly mentioned in the title) that have gotten caught up in the Activist Language Merry-Go-Round. In addition to the specifics of these cases, I discuss the two primary strategies that activists use to destroy terms they dislike: word-sabotage and word-elimination.
Bisexuality and Binaries Revisited– while this piece predates my articulation of the Activist Language Merry-Go-Round, it provides and excellent case study of how word-elimination campaigns (in this case, targeting the word “bisexual”) sometimes foster exclusion and ultimately undermine other marginalized groups.
Inflexibility and Erasure
On People, Polarization, Panopticons, and #ComplexFeelingsAboutActivism – this piece grapples with how differences of opinion within a marginalized group (in this case, trans people) sometimes leads to community schisms, where each side views the other as “oppressive,” and where individuals who lie outside of said debate may remain silent for fear of being viewed as siding with one camp or the other.
A Few Thoughts on Drag, Trans Women, and Subversivism– this is an earlier response to the same community events and dynamics that I discuss in the previous essay. However, this piece is particularly concerned with the deployment of subversivism/the “reinforcing” trope—that is, when activists make claims that certain expressions or ways of being are inherently conservative and assimilationist, and therefore “reinforce” the oppression the group faces.
Regarding “Generation Wars”: some reflections upon reading the recent Jack Halberstam essay – quite often, what seems radical or liberatory to one generation of activists may seem conservative or repressive to another (and vice versa). This is partly my response to a few specific points made in the cited essay, but it was primarily intended to point out how activist strategies that seem logical and sound in one time period or setting may not be readily obvious nor applicable in another.