3 ms·

I’d like to see some introspection here. Can you imagine why they would respond so strongly? I’ll tell you. The trans experience is one that is in many ways be

I’d like to see some introspection here. Can you imagine why they would respond so strongly? I’ll tell you. The trans experience is one that is in many ways beautiful and joyous but is sadly also fraught with trauma. Trans people experience a lot of pain that stays with them. Much of that pain has to do with people who refuse to accept who they truly are. Or people will “just want to have a discussion” where they try to see invalidate the persons identity. When a cis person enters a discussion like this, to the cis person it’s just an intellectual discussion. But to the trans person it can be threatening and it can trigger memories of past trauma they’ve gone through. So yes, trans people get upset when you bring things like this up because you’re bringing up a topic that may have been used as a “gotcha” to invalidate their identity, and it can be unclear if that’s what you’ll try to do. This makes the whole conversation upsetting to them. Imagine if a man who didn’t believe in women’s rights wanted to discuss it with a woman who has been discriminated against. That would be a difficult conversation and it wouldn’t be surprising if she got upset and didn’t want to have a “rational debate” about her rights. What you’re doing when you bring up difficult topics to a marginalized person is you’re forcing them to re live traumatic memories in order to educate you. I learned this from learning about the experiences of people of color. (If you’re white) DO NOT go ask a random black person to explain to you the everyday racism they feel, because inevitably it won’t make sense to you and when you challenge something they say it will become a lot of emotional labor for them to try to make it make sense. Sure some people are fine explaining this stuff but not everyone. Instead what people of color say about this is: go do the learning on your own. Go find out what people in this marginalized group say about your issue without making one of them explain it. Their identity is not up for you to debate. But you can read articles written by people within the community or listen to YouTube interviews. You can find the answers without making a marginalized person re live their trauma to educate you. This is all surrounding the topic of “emotional labor”. Debating someone’s trauma requires huge amounts of emotional labor for them to stay civil and most people don’t have the energy for that, so you should not ask that of them. There are other better ways to educate yourself. EDIT: Folks, I’m trying to honestly tell you the experience I’ve had. I had to learn this stuff too. I know that this community hates being told they have to change their behavior, but I’m kindly and honestly explaining what I know and you’re downvoting me. Please stop.

throwaway894345 5y ago
People who have had trauma have my empathy, but I really don't think there's a tenable path forward besides dispassionate debate. How do we work through a conflict without dispassionate debate? If trans people insist that the only parties to the debate are trans people or those who already agree with them (ignoring that trans people aren't the homogeneous entity that activists make them out to be), then how are they going to gain acceptance in society more broadly? By fiat? Yeah, it sucks that individuals in the majority don't have the same emotional skin in the game as in the minority, but progress of any kind requires that we can talk through stuff. For those of us with trauma (i.e., my trauma isn't "trans trauma"), we should excuse ourselves when the debates hit too close to home too often. We explicitly cannot use our trauma to discredit others (e.g., to conflate their criticism with 'hate') is not going to garner sympathy even if a lot of people who are already "allies" upvote our post on social media or wherever. And indeed, if it's not in the best interest of the legitimately traumatized to use their trauma to silence others, who in their right mind would allow their "allies" to use their trauma to bludgeon others? What rational person would let someone else spend their credibility in contradiction with their own best interests? If the traumatized person overreaches, it might be overlooked on account of the trauma, but what excuses can we make for the mere "allies"?
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  > I really don't think there's a tenable path forward besides dispassionate debate. How do we work through a conflict without dispassionate debate? I will explain my understanding of the answer. I do not claim my answer is the right one, but it is what I see. Let’s say there are two groups. One group we will call a marginalized minority and another group we will call the majority or dominant group. The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly. Imagine people from the black civil rights movement debating whether or not they should be guaranteed the right to vote with no interference. What really was there to debate? Instead of direct debate I see it like this. First, both groups recognize their position. Trans people have been marginalized by a broadly cisgendered society. If you learn a little bit about the murder of trans people throughout the last 5 decades and the lack of investigation, I think that is evidence enough that they are a marginalized group. Okay so step one is recognize the power dynamic. Step two is for the people in the dominant group to listen, without challenge or debate, what the people in the marginalized group want. Step three: the people in the dominant group discuss with themselves how to make those changes. How do we make sure trans people feel welcome and comfortable in bathrooms and sports? How do we make sure trans kids grow up feeling welcomed by society as their whole self? Fourth, the people in the dominant group discuss their difficulties they have with the changes, and they do their best to work it out on their own. Five, some members of the marginalized group who have agreed to discuss this will talk to people in the dominant group and try to address their questions. Six. Having made some changes, the people in the dominant group ask for feedback, and the process repeats. At no point in that course of action do random members of the dominant group need to discuss these changes with members of the marginalized group. As a white person I simply do not challenge what people of color say. There is no need for me to challenge them and I recognize that as a member of the dominant group it could be emotionally distressful for them to have to discuss it with me. Anyway that’s my answer. I hope it helps. Sorry I didn’t answer the rest of your post but I found this the part that felt most salient to me.

throwaway894345 5y ago

People who have had trauma have my empathy, but I really don't think there's a tenable path forward besides dispassionate debate. How do we work through a conflict without dispassionate debate? If trans people insist that the only parties to the debate are trans people or those who already agree with them (ignoring that trans people aren't the homogeneous entity that activists make them out to be), then how are they going to gain acceptance in society more broadly? By fiat? Yeah, it sucks that individuals in the majority don't have the same emotional skin in the game as in the minority, but progress of any kind requires that we can talk through stuff. For those of us with trauma (i.e., my trauma isn't "trans trauma"), we should excuse ourselves when the debates hit too close to home too often. We explicitly cannot use our trauma to discredit others (e.g., to conflate their criticism with 'hate') is not going to garner sympathy even if a lot of people who are already "allies" upvote our post on social media or wherever. And indeed, if it's not in the best interest of the legitimately traumatized to use their trauma to silence others, who in their right mind would allow their "allies" to use their trauma to bludgeon others? What rational person would let someone else spend their credibility in contradiction with their own best interests? If the traumatized person overreaches, it might be overlooked on account of the trauma, but what excuses can we make for the mere "allies"?

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> I really don't think there's a tenable path forward besides dispassionate debate. How do we work through a conflict without dispassionate debate? I will explain my understanding of the answer. I do not claim my answer is the right one, but it is what I see. Let’s say there are two groups. One group we will call a marginalized minority and another group we will call the majority or dominant group. The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly. Imagine people from the black civil rights movement debating whether or not they should be guaranteed the right to vote with no interference. What really was there to debate? Instead of direct debate I see it like this. First, both groups recognize their position. Trans people have been marginalized by a broadly cisgendered society. If you learn a little bit about the murder of trans people throughout the last 5 decades and the lack of investigation, I think that is evidence enough that they are a marginalized group. Okay so step one is recognize the power dynamic. Step two is for the people in the dominant group to listen, without challenge or debate, what the people in the marginalized group want. Step three: the people in the dominant group discuss with themselves how to make those changes. How do we make sure trans people feel welcome and comfortable in bathrooms and sports? How do we make sure trans kids grow up feeling welcomed by society as their whole self? Fourth, the people in the dominant group discuss their difficulties they have with the changes, and they do their best to work it out on their own. Five, some members of the marginalized group who have agreed to discuss this will talk to people in the dominant group and try to address their questions. Six. Having made some changes, the people in the dominant group ask for feedback, and the process repeats. At no point in that course of action do random members of the dominant group need to discuss these changes with members of the marginalized group. As a white person I simply do not challenge what people of color say. There is no need for me to challenge them and I recognize that as a member of the dominant group it could be emotionally distressful for them to have to discuss it with me. Anyway that’s my answer. I hope it helps. Sorry I didn’t answer the rest of your post but I found this the part that felt most salient to me.