3 ms·

> 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 expl

> 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
I appreciate your perspective. I agree with a lot, including that trans people are legitimately marginalized in our society in some measure (certainly the extent to which authorities fail to investigate murders of trans victims is abhorrent). > The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly. To be clear, this isn't "trans people" vs "non-trans people". There are lots of trans people who don't think it's appropriate to change our bathroom policies and non-trans people who think we should change those policies. The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities. With respect to your steps vs debate, I think your steps describe a national debate, except for the earlier caveat that the debate isn't "trans vs non-trans" but rather different ideological positions and also that at any given moment different individuals in the debate (on any side) are at different "steps" in the process, and also that individuals on all sides vary in their willingness to listen or participate in good faith. So basically a debate is a mess because people aren't uniformly acting in good faith nor are they uniformly disciplined about listening before speaking nor are they acting in synchrony (everyone within a group meets to listen to an ambassador for the other group, and then carefully considers together, and so on). However, over the course of months or years, things do tend to converge in a direction that most people feel pretty good about. That's what progress looks like. > 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. With respect, I disagree in the strongest possible terms here. No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized. If any given black person or white person feels triggered (in the clinical, not pejorative, sense), they are certainly not obligated to engage with the criticism, but to assume that someone is fragile on the basis of their race is the height of racism (however well intended).
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I appreciate the thoughtful response. I’m in the go so I will try to make a quick reply. > The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities. I think the concept of intersectionality is useful here. Ideology is one component but identity is another. If we treat this like a simple ideological debate the potential trauma of the marginalized group could be ignored, potentially causing the mere act of the debate to re traumatize people in that group. > No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized. Respectfully I think this is a misunderstanding of my view. I learned to keep my mouth shut not because people in marginalized groups are fragile. I learned to keep my mouth shut because I learned that my outsider status means a lot of things marginalized people say night not make immediate sense to me. Trying to interrogate (neutral sense) their reasoning can be a traumatic experience for them. I learned this when I asked women at Google to explain their sexual harassment to me. A female friend took the time to explain to me that even asking the question could cause distress in women. Now when someone says something I disagree with I stay silent and I go and google the thing and learn more about it on my own. Certainly in some cases the person wants to discuss the thing with me, but I don’t assume that to be the case. I also learned this from a person of color who did not appreciate similar questions from me. While there is a LOT of worthwhile criticism of Robin DiAngelo, her talks helped me understand that concept better.

throwaway894345 5y ago

I appreciate your perspective. I agree with a lot, including that trans people are legitimately marginalized in our society in some measure (certainly the extent to which authorities fail to investigate murders of trans victims is abhorrent). > The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly. To be clear, this isn't "trans people" vs "non-trans people". There are lots of trans people who don't think it's appropriate to change our bathroom policies and non-trans people who think we should change those policies. The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities. With respect to your steps vs debate, I think your steps describe a national debate, except for the earlier caveat that the debate isn't "trans vs non-trans" but rather different ideological positions and also that at any given moment different individuals in the debate (on any side) are at different "steps" in the process, and also that individuals on all sides vary in their willingness to listen or participate in good faith. So basically a debate is a mess because people aren't uniformly acting in good faith nor are they uniformly disciplined about listening before speaking nor are they acting in synchrony (everyone within a group meets to listen to an ambassador for the other group, and then carefully considers together, and so on). However, over the course of months or years, things do tend to converge in a direction that most people feel pretty good about. That's what progress looks like. > 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. With respect, I disagree in the strongest possible terms here. No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized. If any given black person or white person feels triggered (in the clinical, not pejorative, sense), they are certainly not obligated to engage with the criticism, but to assume that someone is fragile on the basis of their race is the height of racism (however well intended).

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I’m in the go so I will try to make a quick reply. > The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities. I think the concept of intersectionality is useful here. Ideology is one component but identity is another. If we treat this like a simple ideological debate the potential trauma of the marginalized group could be ignored, potentially causing the mere act of the debate to re traumatize people in that group. > No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized. Respectfully I think this is a misunderstanding of my view. I learned to keep my mouth shut not because people in marginalized groups are fragile. I learned to keep my mouth shut because I learned that my outsider status means a lot of things marginalized people say night not make immediate sense to me. Trying to interrogate (neutral sense) their reasoning can be a traumatic experience for them. I learned this when I asked women at Google to explain their sexual harassment to me. A female friend took the time to explain to me that even asking the question could cause distress in women. Now when someone says something I disagree with I stay silent and I go and google the thing and learn more about it on my own. Certainly in some cases the person wants to discuss the thing with me, but I don’t assume that to be the case. I also learned this from a person of color who did not appreciate similar questions from me. While there is a LOT of worthwhile criticism of Robin DiAngelo, her talks helped me understand that concept better.