CW: Transphobia, TERF rhetoric, examples of racism, sexism, homophobia, a slur.
I should start by explaining by what I mean by weaponised rhetoric, bad faith arguments, and othering. Weaponised rhetoric is a form of argument that is used to attack people. When it comes to marginalised people we often see this kind of rhetoric popping up as slurs, dogwhistles, half-truisms, etc... These are phrases which in and of themselves may (as with slurs) or may not (as with dogwhistles) be harmful when taken out of context, but they are always harmful particularly when speaking about marginalised people. Take for instance the phrase, “Asian people are good at mathematics,” or “Women are just naturally more nurturing,” or “Gay men are promiscuous.” These are weaponised statements. They confer bigotry regardless of whether they are true or not. As with “Asian people are good at mathematics.” This argument functions as a form of “Model Minority” racism, where a stereotype of a particular group of POC have been attributed with a particular characteristic. It is harmful not because it is true or because it is false, but because it carries with it so much historically abusive weight. The “Model Minority” argument is not only damaging to people of Asian descent, but also to other people of colour, against whom the rhetoric is used as a shaming tool, an exclusionary tool, an excuse to continue being racist. The same goes for, “Women are just naturally more nurturing”. This argument hurts women in many ways because it confers upon them a characteristic that (whether true or not) sets up a series of expectations. If a woman is not nurturing she’s framed as a bad woman, a not “REAL” (TM) woman. “What kind of a woman doesn’t want to be nurturing? What kind of woman doesn’t want to be a mother? What kind of woman doesn’t want a husband to take care of?” And so the rhetoric goes. It harms men who are nurturing, characterising them as “feminine and therefore weak and not ‘REAL’ (TM) men.” This concept of “REAL” (TM) is important here because that’s exactly what this kind of rhetoric does. It others marginalised people (I’ll get to othering later). I’ve written an article the gay promiscuity myth and why it’s dangerous, but it functions in precisely the same way.
I should start by explaining by what I mean by weaponised rhetoric, bad faith arguments, and othering. Weaponised rhetoric is a form of argument that is used to attack people. When it comes to marginalised people we often see this kind of rhetoric popping up as slurs, dogwhistles, half-truisms, etc... These are phrases which in and of themselves may (as with slurs) or may not (as with dogwhistles) be harmful when taken out of context, but they are always harmful particularly when speaking about marginalised people. Take for instance the phrase, “Asian people are good at mathematics,” or “Women are just naturally more nurturing,” or “Gay men are promiscuous.” These are weaponised statements. They confer bigotry regardless of whether they are true or not. As with “Asian people are good at mathematics.” This argument functions as a form of “Model Minority” racism, where a stereotype of a particular group of POC have been attributed with a particular characteristic. It is harmful not because it is true or because it is false, but because it carries with it so much historically abusive weight. The “Model Minority” argument is not only damaging to people of Asian descent, but also to other people of colour, against whom the rhetoric is used as a shaming tool, an exclusionary tool, an excuse to continue being racist. The same goes for, “Women are just naturally more nurturing”. This argument hurts women in many ways because it confers upon them a characteristic that (whether true or not) sets up a series of expectations. If a woman is not nurturing she’s framed as a bad woman, a not “REAL” (TM) woman. “What kind of a woman doesn’t want to be nurturing? What kind of woman doesn’t want to be a mother? What kind of woman doesn’t want a husband to take care of?” And so the rhetoric goes. It harms men who are nurturing, characterising them as “feminine and therefore weak and not ‘REAL’ (TM) men.” This concept of “REAL” (TM) is important here because that’s exactly what this kind of rhetoric does. It others marginalised people (I’ll get to othering later). I’ve written an article the gay promiscuity myth and why it’s dangerous, but it functions in precisely the same way.
Secondly I would like to talk about arguments in bad faith. An argument in bad faith is where a person says something that is seemingly innocuous, but has a double meaning, or they intend to deceive, or they intend to excuse their agency or responsibility in a matter. A basic example of a behaving in bad faith is, “I lied to you to protect you.” Take for instance the argument, “Don’t yell at me for being a bigot, that makes you just as bad as me.” Here the statement tries to distract from the responsibility of the bigot, and transferring it to the target of the statement. Another form of argument in bad faith is where a person responds to an argument with insults (ad hominem), “I don’t care for your argument, you’re stupid.”
Thirdly, let’s look at the term “othering”. Now what’s important about this term is that it is the primary act of every kind of bigotry. It is the function of setting up an us-vs-them situation. This is a power based relationship. When cishet people other queer people, it sets up a disparity between cishet people and queer people. It is the first step of bigotry, it leads to marginalization, it leads to formal oppression, it leads to assault, it leads to death. What’s interesting is that when marginalised people point this out, recognising the damage been done, recognising the othering, privileged people turn around and say, “Why are *you* being so divisive.” As if recognising the wound is as bad as causing it. Dogwhistles are good at this. A dogwhistle is an argument that a bigot would use so what they are saying doesn’t seem so bad. It’s ‘pitched’ in such a way that other bigots and marginalised people can hear it clearly, but they have the benefit of plausible deniability, “I didn’t say he’s a faggot, I just said he’s a bit light in the loafers/limp wristed.” “But I’m colourblind.” Anti-vaccine people often use the term “pro-vaccine safety” as a dogwhistle. An anti-semetic dogwhistle you’ll often hear used is “international bankers.” When a bigot cries they’re being “censored” or “no platformed” and then cry “freedom of speech”. You get the idea.
This is where popular TERF talking points (cf. Every fucking TERF ever, Feminist Current, the Guardian, etc...) have been heading for a while. They don’t want to sound so openly bigoted anymore so they’re resorting to dogwhistles and subtle othering arguments. Trans women say “We are women!” Trans men say “We are men!” Trans nonbinary folk say “We are nonbinary!” And TERFs storm into the gate screaming “We don’t say trans women aren’t women anymore, but cis women and trans women are different! Cis and trans men are different. Nonbinary people don’t exist because unicorns bla bla bla” (This is probably the nicest framing of this bullshit statement I can offer you... perhaps not the unicorns part)
Now the question you have to ask yourself here is a) Are they saying it to ‘other’ trans people? b) Are they saying to dogwhistle fellow bigots? c) Is this an argument in bad faith? And the answer is yes to all three.
It others trans people because it fundamentally denies trans people who they really are. If trans women are women, fundamentally. Why do you have to say it? It functions as a dogwhistle in the same way allowing TERFs to speak in bigoted ways about trans people without seeming all that bigoted. And that’s what dogwhistles are designed for. A homophobic dogwhistle is still homophobic. A racist dogwhistle is still racist. A transphobic dogwhistle is still transphobic. And yes, this is an argument in bad faith, it tries to wrestle the agency of identity away from trans people. It tries to set up the “REAL” (TM) Women trope and the “REAL” (TM) Men trope – which is funny, because that is something that feminism is... um... supposed to fight in the first place? Which is why TERFs are not feminists. As an example from the TransAdvocate:
TERF: “We want to end gender.”
Feminist: “Oh, so we won’t use gendered pronouns anymore?”
TERF: “No keep those.”
Feminist: “Gendered clothing?”
TERF: “No that’s ok.”
Feminist: “Segregated bathrooms?”
TERF: “No those are important.”
Feminist: “So, we’re going to do something about the gender binary, yes? We’re going to attack the idea that gender is intrinsically linked to one’s anatomy, and we’re going to boose the visibility of trans and intersex people, who face THE MOST VIOLENT CONSEQUENCES OF SEX AND GENDER BINARIES – yes?”
TERF: “No.”
Feminist: “Then what are you going to do exactly? What is your plan? How are you going to accomplish this?”
TERF: “Abolish gender.”
Feminist: “How?”
TERF: “Abolish it!”
The long and short of it is: If trans women are women; if trans men are men; if trans nonbinary people are nonbinary (and they are), what is the function of cisgender people storming into the conversation saying, "But they're different!"
-o0o-
[1] Transadvocate extract: http://transadvocate.com/terfs-offer-only-hyperbole_n_12988.htm
