( overanddone )
I see hopeful signs everywhere. It may just be my fervent wish.
I think continual outrage is hard to sustain.
On the contrary, continual outrage is very easy to sustain indefinitely. One need only look at Ovarit and gender-critical ideology. You do it magnificently well!
But you are right about the hopeful signs (for your kind). I see them too. And I think the future belongs to you, at least in regards to how trans folk will be treated.
Most people will never become TERFs, but I do believe they will largely come to accept essential parts of your views about us (those people who don’t already, of course).
I’ll explain a bit.
Trans people and allies (AKA what you call ‘gender ideology’) have a problem.
We are at a disadvantage, because we are not allowed to have ‘bad apples’. We are expected to collectively answer for every single thing a particular trans person does — and it doesn’t stop even there; we are also expected to answer for every non-trans person who does something bad because we supposedly somehow enabled it.
Every time something bad supposedly happens — whether real, dubious or straight-up manufactured — it’s on ALL of us. We are seen by your kind as a blob with collective responsibility and collective blame for the actions of every individual, and for every single bad thing which may or may not have resulted from the existence and implementation of trans rights.
On the other hand, you, who are such perpetual “victims”, aren’t expected to answer for anything. All you need to do is point your fingers and accuse, and we’re already considered guilty. After all, you’re just “concerned”, “asking questions”, “being silenced”, and “just pointing out the obvious truth”.
We say “this thing works for most of us”, but all you have to do is say “but here’s a counter-example or few who were harmed by it”, and most people will take you at face value and become skeptical of us.
We say “this measure would help us”; you give a hypothetical doomsday scenario which will scare onlookers and make them stop and pull back.
You can just keep throwing up examples of individual bad trans people, which we then have to debunk or address because you accuse ALL of us of enabling them or being like them. There’s not enough time, people or mental bandwidth on our side to address the huge shower of shit you and your transphobe allies keep dousing us in daily.
Even if we do manage to debunk a particular example, it still doesn’t matter, because you’ll just say that it COULD have happened, so greater oversight, control and limitations put upon us are valid and warranted.
And if the example you gave was actually real and accurate, well, then that’s obvious evidence of our collective fault!
We say “we have a lot of evidence that transition works and helps us”, you say “no you don’t, and if you do, what you have has shit quality evidence”… and then you advocate for seemingly “common-sense” solutions which have *no* evidence for them or have been proven to be wrong (e.g. “gender exploratory therapy” AKA conversion therapy for trans people).
But that’s not all.
Part of the reason why I believe you will win is because our positions fundamentally differ in regards to mainstream society.
We have to explain and justify concepts which are basically alien to cis people. And we have to convince them why we need certain rights (or, as you’d call them, ‘privileges’) that cis people just don’t need, and often don’t understand or see why anyone would. Rights which only help a tiny part of the population, and might affect the huge majority who are not us in some way.
In the course of this, we upend and turn on its head much of what these people thought of as “common sense” and how the world functions.
Due to that, ours is a very uphill battle that we are unlikely to win.
You, on the other hand, argue the “common-sense” viewpoints. When you don’t dive into the more esoteric aspects of TERF ideology, your arguments are very easy and understandable to the average person. You appeal to things which many people find obviously positive: rationality, logic, common sense, ethics in medicine, freedom of speech, safety from violence, safety for women and children, and — yes — normalcy and conformity.
In a world where most people value some or all of those things, your chances for appealing to them and spreading your worldview are actually really good.
And you know just the right language and what heartstrings to pull to appeal to intelligent people who see themselves as accepting, but rational and responsible. Particularly centrists, liberals, libertarians and moderates of all kinds.
You speak their language. We don’t.
We challenge people’s ways of thinking, and request accommodations that they may not like, feel comfortable with, or approve of.
On the other hand, your message to them is that they are actually okay, that they shouldn’t change or do anything differently, and that their preconceptions and views about us are right and valid. You reassure them that by standing their ground or resisting, they are on the right side of history, and the future will vindicate them.
We argue that we have special needs that should be considered.
You argue that everyone else’s needs are all that matters, that their fears matter and that their ideas about us stemming from those fears or prejudices are true.
I think it’s obvious who has the advantage here. The ‘game’ is rigged… in your favor.