A response to deBoer on trans acceptance

He's right about a lot but wrong about some things that matter.

I'm a moron. I've been thinking about starting a Substack for a while and now here I am doing it by starting with a post on trans issues. This is not smart. Oh well.

---

I’m prompted to write by the latest Freddie deBoer article on trans acceptance. Please read that first and subscribe to him. I like deBoer a lot (despite the fact that I disagree with him on many things). He is smart and interesting. And I agree with his position on trans issues to a large degree: we should support trans people, protect their rights, and strongly push back against those who would engage with them from a position of cruelty rather than kindness. But there were two things in his recent article that jumped out at me as… let’s go with “misguided.” One of my concerns is substantive, the other is about stupid culture war shit.

Let’s start with the substantive concern. deBoer takes issue with the analogy with “transracialism” (i.e. someone presenting themself as - and trying to pass as - a member of a different race). For deBoer, transracialism and transgenderism are entirely different things; transgenderism is fine, transracialism is not. So what’s wrong with transracialism?

Yes, the cultural expectations that we apply on top of race are socially constructed, but racial identity is widely understood to include matters of recent genetic heritage. Two Black people very likely share more recent heritage (that is, closer recent relatives among their ancestors) than a Black person and an East Asian person. Race is an extremely complicated set of concepts that involve all manner of social elements, but race is broadly understood to be inherited from parents. People like Dolezal have received great criticism because they have misrepresented their heritage; they have stated or implied matters of fact (“my ancestry is Native America,” “I am Black”) that are untrue and which concern issues of great sensitivity.

This is a very bad argument, and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading it. deBoer (correctly) distinguishes between heritage and race. “Heritage” is something objective and biological; it’s about who your parents are. “Race,” on the other hand, is complicated, and largely socially constructed. Despite this, race is anchored in heritage in such a way that someone who claims to be a certain race will be taken to be making claims about their heritage as well, so that asserting a racial identity that doesn’t align with your heritage will count as misrepresenting your heritage. This is EXACTLY what many people say about sex and gender!

Let’s take deBoer’s first paragraph and modify it slightly:

Yes, the cultural expectations that we apply on top of gender are socially constructed, but gender is widely understood to include matters of genetics. Two women very likely share more genetic characteristics than a woman and a man. Gender is an extremely complicated set of concepts that involve all manner of social elements, but gender is broadly understood to be genetic. Trans people have received great criticism because they have misrepresented their sex; they have stated or implied matters of fact (“I am a woman;” “I am male”) that are untrue and which concern issues of great sensitivity.

This is a perfect summary of what many gender critical feminists argue. Set aside whether or not either paragraph is correct; the logic is the same. I don’t see a disanalogy. At least not yet.

One might argue that my parody is inapt because gender is not “broadly understood” to be genetic, but that would be wrong. “Gender” was, for a very long time, a polite way to say “sex.” Then a few decades ago some theorists decided to appropriate the term “gender” to refer to a kind of social role or set of norms that is only contingently connected to sex. That usage for the word “gender” is now well-understood in academic contexts, but most normies continue to find it bizarre. Still, if we want to insist on this usage of the word “gender,” I see absolutely no reason why theorists and activists could not insist on a parallel move for “race,” to identify race as a social role or set of norms that is only contingently connected to heritage. We can justify this lignusitic maneuver in precisely the same way that the maneuver around “gender” occurred: (1) it helps to liberate people from norms unjustly opposed as a consequence of their heritage, and (2) it allows transracial individuals a language to describe themselves. I think that (1) can easily be accepted as a good thing by all parties to the debate. Many would balk at (2) on the grounds that transracial individuals don’t deserve this sort of allowance. But that assumes the very point at issue.

deBoer continues:

Gender identity, meanwhile, has no specific biological determinant. Yes, most human beings have either a penis and testicles and XY chromosomes or ovaries and a uterus and XX chromosomes, and most people in the former camp identify as men and in the latter, as women. But many don’t. The basic progressive argument about gender is precisely that gender identity isn’t tied to either genetics or physiology. The argument is that gender is socially constructed and mediated. That doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily no difference between cis and trans people’s genes or brains or whatever else. But it does mean that trying to enforce a particular gender identity on someone in conflict with their felt and experienced gender identity is aggressive and wrong. If you simply say “your gender identity is determined by your anatomy,” then you’re assuming away the very point of contention - what constitutes gender. Again, transracialism involves an inherent degree of deception that simply isn’t a part of trans culture. Someone who fakes Native American heritage is trying to secretly appropriate an identity they know that they don’t have for selfish gain; they actively deceive. A trans person presents their gender according to an identity they sincerely feel, which often comes at significant personal cost, with no intent to deceive. Indeed, for them, living with a gender identity they don’t truly feel is a deception.

Now, the parody:

Racial identity, meanwhile, has no specific biological determinant. Yes, most human beings have either light or dark skin, and most people in the former camp identify as white and in the latter, as black. But many don’t. The basic progressive argument about race should be precisely that racial identity isn’t tied to either genetics or physiology. The argument is that race is socially constructed and mediated. That doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily no difference between cis[racial] and trans[racial] people’s genes or brains or whatever else. But it does mean that trying to enforce a particular racial identity on someone in conflict with their felt and experienced race is aggressive and wrong. If you simply say “your racial identity is determined by your anatomy,” then you’re assuming away the very point of contention - what constitutes race.

This argument, or one quite like it, was forcefully made by Rebecca Tuvel in her (insanely controversial) paper “In Defense of Transracialism.”

Continuing the parody:

Again, transgenderism involves an inherent degree of deception that simply isn’t a part of trans[racial] culture. Someone who fakes being a woman is trying to secretly appropriate an identity they know that they don’t have for selfish gain; they actively deceive.

This is precisely what conservatives and some gender critical feminists say.

A trans[racial] person presents their race according to an identity they sincerely feel, which often comes at significant personal cost, with no intent to deceive. Indeed, for them, living with a racial identity they don’t truly feel is a deception.

And this is Tuvel’s defense of Dolezal! Everything lines up perfectly. deBoer is saying that transracial people are being deceptive about their race, but transgender people are being honest about their gender identity. But this assumes away the very points of contention.

Defenders of transracialism and transgenderism, like Tuvel, claim that both transracial and transgender people are being honest about their race/gender identity. Opponents of both transracialism and transgenderism, like K Whittaker, think that these notions of “gender identity” and “race identity” are both bullshit, and that both transgender and transracial people are being dishonest about their biology. I’m more with Tuvel than with Whittaker on this issue. But I’m against deBoer; I don’t see a disanalogy.

Perhaps the problem is that the notion of a gender identity is coherent and refers to something real, whereas a racial identity is not. But what is a gender identity? HRC says that gender identity is:

One's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.

Ok. But then why not say that racial identity is:

One's innermost concept of self as black, white, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's racial identity can be the same or different from their race assigned at birth.

This seems just as coherent as the definition of gender identity. I see no principled way to draw a distinction between transracialism and transgenderism.

I’ve argued elsewhere that HRC’s definition (and other similar definitions) of gender identity have big problems. A better definition of gender identity is that someone’s gender identity is the the sex that they wish they were (in perhaps some deep, profound sense). But then we could say that racial identity is the race that someone wishes they were (in a deep, profound sense). Again, I see no disanalogy between these two kinds of identity.

Tuvel’s argument for the conclusion that we should treat transracialism and transgenderism the same way (the “parity claim”) is extremely compelling. Tuvel thinks that we should be more sympathetic to those who claim transracial identities; I agree. If you think that transracialism is deceptive, confused, and wrong, then you’ll have to take Whittaker’s side.

(While I agree more with Tuvel in this debate, I think Whittaker makes one incontrovertably good point: progressives often deny the “parity claim” because they think it creates more pressure to reject transgender identity than pressure to accept transracial identity rather than because they’ve spotted a genuine disanalogy between the two kinds of identity. deBoer’s argument just seems to bolster Whittaker’s point. The attempt to draw a disanalogy is so feeble, it reeks of fear of the modus tollens.)

---

Ok, on to the culture war shit. While I’m eager to defend Tuvel, the thing that really stuck in my craw was what deBoer had to say about his own stance on trans issues. deBoer describes himself as having a “standard, not-particularly-interesting progressive” point of view about trans issues. Yet when he elaborates on this, he says:

And, to address the controversy of the day, I think that medical decisions about transitioning for minors should be handled by those minors, their parents, and their doctors. Of course medical protocol will evolve over time. It may well be that, in the future, the protocol regarding medical transition for minors will include longer waiting periods or more psychological evaluation. But I really have no idea if that will happen because I’m not a doctor or researcher and am not involved in the development of medical guidelines for trans minors. And I don’t understand why this element of medical science has become everyone’s business to a degree that is simply not true in other fields. Let these minors, their parents, and their doctors determine the best course of action.

This is transphobic (or: “transphobic”). If you’ve been mired in this “controversy of the day,” you should see why. If not, take a look again and see if anything jumps out at you as being particularly bigoted.

No?

Ok, here it is: deBoer says that the best course of action should be decided by ‘minors, their parents, and their doctors.” That’s bigoted. Trans kids know who they are. The best course of action should be decided by minors. Period. Doctors and parents should play no role in this decision. Perhaps, for legal reasons, they must check various boxes on certain forms. But no one but the trans kid should play any role in “determining the best course of action.” For if others play a role in determining the best course of action, then it’s possible that the parents and doctors might determine that the best course of action is not to transition, contrary to the wishes of the minor. That’s unacceptable. Trans [clap] kids [clap] know [clap] who [clap] they [clap] are. Anyone who second guesses them, even their parents or doctors, is a bigot. Anyone who endorses this second-guessing is also a bigot. So Freddie deBoer is a bigot.

Does the argument of the previous paragraph seem extreme? Sure; of course it is. But this is the debate; this is the “controversy of the day.” deBoer’s position, that parents and doctors should have some say in the medical procedures done to the children in their care, is “gatekeeping.” This is the opposite of “affirming” care, which means (in this context) that parents and doctors ought to affirm whatever trans kids tell them. deBoer thinks that his position is standard and not particularly interesting. But this is the very position that got Jesse Singal labeled a bigot by GLAAD and countless internet yahoos.

(Note also deBoer’s reference to medical science as having some relevance to the treatments given to trans kids. While he’s not explicit about what that means, presumably he thinks that if medical science provides no evidence that youth transition provides benefits to the youth in question, that would count against a medical policy of youth transition. Again, this is Singal’s position, for which he has been labeled a bigot. The “affirming” position is that medical science doesn’t tell you what’s best for trans kids; trans kids tell you what’s best for trans kids. Saying anything else is gatekeeping, and therefore bigoted.)

So no, Freddie, your position is not “not-particularly-interesting.” It should be not particularly interesting! But an extremely vocal and disproportionately influential minority of activists has declared your position to be interesting and, in fact, bigoted. Would you like to push back on them? If not, I understand. This isn’t a battle you’re invested in and the costs of engaging are high. There’s no shame in laying low. But please do be aware that there is an intra-left battle about what it means to be “trans accepting,” and you’re on the side that’s been losing badly for the last several years. Weary dismissal of those who are in your corner is ungrateful.

I’m so sorry to have done this. What a stupid way to start a blog.

---

Subscribe for much more boring takes in the future. Next up: Stop saying “priors,” just say “beliefs.” You’re not Nate Silver (thank god). After that, Final Fantasy retrospectives. I am vast; I contain multitudes.

---