A friend of mine who is in a monogamous relationship with a white guy recently said that the majority of Trump voters are women and people of color so for the moment he won't be having sex with any women or people of color.
This is all well and good David but what should trans people do? When we are worried about our passports being invalidated? When we are afraid to visit an increasing number of states? What purpose does all this scolding on your part serve? Because ultimately that's all it is--scolding a bunch of terrified people for expressing their terror in terms you find unpalatable
"But if a trans person feels that sex is a “big middle-finger” to their political tormenters, if it renews their personal life-force and helps refreshes them for actual political battle, then it’s surely not my place to tell them otherwise."
But wait. Why should trans people be exempt from the critique? Isn't the point that it's politically self-defeating to fool oneself into thinking that basically non-political, self-focused acts are meaningful acts of political resistance?
That's a great summary of the point, and no one is exempt from it. I was trying to make some kind of distinction between the abstract political argument I'm making and my sympathy with people's individual reactions - especially people who reasonably feel targeted. Which is why it's understandable for Naomi to think I'm trying to have it both ways.
But her original comment doesn't really address anything I actually wrote. I don't know what trans people should do! I don't really know what ANYONE should do. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to see somewhat clearly what kinds of reactions are politically impotent and not delude ourselves otherwise. Maybe it's cruel or autistic to talk about that "too soon." I hope not; I hope we are not that fragile, but I realize I'm setting myself up for that kind of reaction.
How can you critique someone's coping? The fact is trans people are powerless. There is no resistance. A presidential candidate won election by demonizing us. We are terrified. There is no way of avoiding or obviating that. Please give me the critique that fixes that Daniel.
I'm saying I understand if people have a different reaction than me, and in that case in particular it's more complicated. I'm allowed to have an opinion about what is helpful or politically effective even if other people have (understandably!) different ones. And I think expressing terror in certain ways can actually be bad!
I guess I'd want to know what the real question is here. Is it whether writing a critique, right now, of trans people's cope is needlessly cruel? Or is it this questions you're asking here. Because I think there are clear answers to the latter question, but the former is much more tricky. I'm not out there writing critiques of anyone's cope right now, probably for the reason you're suggesting, that it feels cold. But I do have a lot of critiques in general of what I take David to be critiquing in this post.
I understand that lots of people would like trans people to not be afraid right now. They would like us to be brave and say oh we will organize and win next time. The fact is, the next four years are very likely to see an erosion in trans people's rights, just as the last four years have seen a significant erosion in our rights. It is highly unclear whether that erosion will ever be remedied, even by a democratic president in four years. What is the solution to that fear? There is no organizing here. We had the election. Trans people lost. Our rights are unpopular. The solution is merely to continue existing so people realize we cannot and will not disappear. This, the thing you guys find so silly--this IS actually our only recourse. To exist. If you have a different or better one, please tell us!
It would be great to exist with love and acceptance in our hearts.
Unfortunately, most people find that very difficult. We have anger. That anger will manifest in our rhetoric in various ways. That rhetoric might be alienating. To the extent we care about remaining friends with regular people, we will have to moderate that rhetoric. But many trans people don't particularly care to maintain those relationships.
So then what's the critique? Just that cis people find this language silly? Who cares? That it's politically ineffective? Okay...so tell me the effective rhetoric? What is effective? What is better?
I think the “trans people are in danger and cis gay people are not” narrative is both true in some important ways in that it’s a signal to urban cis white gays to consider their position of relative privilege—and misleading in other ways. If Roe is so fragile what’s to say that Bostock vs Clayton County and Obergefell v Hodges won’t be next? Hate crimes are spiking—and that’s just the reported stats.
A friend of mine who is in a monogamous relationship with a white guy recently said that the majority of Trump voters are women and people of color so for the moment he won't be having sex with any women or people of color.
We laugh, but people take that kind of thing seriously!
This is all well and good David but what should trans people do? When we are worried about our passports being invalidated? When we are afraid to visit an increasing number of states? What purpose does all this scolding on your part serve? Because ultimately that's all it is--scolding a bunch of terrified people for expressing their terror in terms you find unpalatable
"But if a trans person feels that sex is a “big middle-finger” to their political tormenters, if it renews their personal life-force and helps refreshes them for actual political battle, then it’s surely not my place to tell them otherwise."
But isn't this post you telling them otherwise?
But wait. Why should trans people be exempt from the critique? Isn't the point that it's politically self-defeating to fool oneself into thinking that basically non-political, self-focused acts are meaningful acts of political resistance?
That's a great summary of the point, and no one is exempt from it. I was trying to make some kind of distinction between the abstract political argument I'm making and my sympathy with people's individual reactions - especially people who reasonably feel targeted. Which is why it's understandable for Naomi to think I'm trying to have it both ways.
But her original comment doesn't really address anything I actually wrote. I don't know what trans people should do! I don't really know what ANYONE should do. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to see somewhat clearly what kinds of reactions are politically impotent and not delude ourselves otherwise. Maybe it's cruel or autistic to talk about that "too soon." I hope not; I hope we are not that fragile, but I realize I'm setting myself up for that kind of reaction.
How can you critique someone's coping? The fact is trans people are powerless. There is no resistance. A presidential candidate won election by demonizing us. We are terrified. There is no way of avoiding or obviating that. Please give me the critique that fixes that Daniel.
I'm saying I understand if people have a different reaction than me, and in that case in particular it's more complicated. I'm allowed to have an opinion about what is helpful or politically effective even if other people have (understandably!) different ones. And I think expressing terror in certain ways can actually be bad!
So what's the good way? To just feel acceptance and not be afraid? How?
I guess I'd want to know what the real question is here. Is it whether writing a critique, right now, of trans people's cope is needlessly cruel? Or is it this questions you're asking here. Because I think there are clear answers to the latter question, but the former is much more tricky. I'm not out there writing critiques of anyone's cope right now, probably for the reason you're suggesting, that it feels cold. But I do have a lot of critiques in general of what I take David to be critiquing in this post.
I understand that lots of people would like trans people to not be afraid right now. They would like us to be brave and say oh we will organize and win next time. The fact is, the next four years are very likely to see an erosion in trans people's rights, just as the last four years have seen a significant erosion in our rights. It is highly unclear whether that erosion will ever be remedied, even by a democratic president in four years. What is the solution to that fear? There is no organizing here. We had the election. Trans people lost. Our rights are unpopular. The solution is merely to continue existing so people realize we cannot and will not disappear. This, the thing you guys find so silly--this IS actually our only recourse. To exist. If you have a different or better one, please tell us!
It would be great to exist with love and acceptance in our hearts.
Unfortunately, most people find that very difficult. We have anger. That anger will manifest in our rhetoric in various ways. That rhetoric might be alienating. To the extent we care about remaining friends with regular people, we will have to moderate that rhetoric. But many trans people don't particularly care to maintain those relationships.
So then what's the critique? Just that cis people find this language silly? Who cares? That it's politically ineffective? Okay...so tell me the effective rhetoric? What is effective? What is better?
I think the “trans people are in danger and cis gay people are not” narrative is both true in some important ways in that it’s a signal to urban cis white gays to consider their position of relative privilege—and misleading in other ways. If Roe is so fragile what’s to say that Bostock vs Clayton County and Obergefell v Hodges won’t be next? Hate crimes are spiking—and that’s just the reported stats.