Dressing as you please, self-identifying the way you want, and wishing people the best hardly seem transphobic. It was the last two lines that were controversial. The controversy is because a) Rowling stated that biological sex exists, and b) Rowling showed support for Maya Forstater with #IStandWithMaya.
Who Is Maya Forstater?
Maya Forstater was a tax policy expert formerly contracted at the U.K.-based Centre for Global Development. Forstater lost her job with the Centre not because of her performance on the job, but because of her beliefs on biological sex were "offensive and exclusionary." Forstater had been advocating in opposition to the Gender Recognition Act, which would allow individuals in the United Kingdom to legally change their gender. Here is one of her tweets that sums up her views:
Forstater believes that transwomen are not really women, and that transmen are not truly men. She essentially believes that men are born male and women are born female, i.e., biological sex is immutable. This has made Forstater a hero among feminists who prioritize fighting for sex-based rights, and she also has become vilified as someone who seemingly denies the existence and experience of trans individuals. Not only did Forstater lose her contract, but an employment tribunal in the United Kingdom upheld the Centre's ruling by deeming Forstater's views as "absolutist," "incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others," and not protected under Equality Act 2010. Rowling did not agree with the treatment of Forstater, hence her tweet.
In colloquial English, many people use the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. In reality, these are two different concepts. Sex refers an individual's biological sex, whether we refer to the individual's anatomy, reproductive system, or secondary sex characteristics. Gender either refers to social roles based on one's sex or to a personal identification based on an internal awareness.
For most people, their gender matches their biological sex. However, there are a small minority of individuals for whom gender identity does not match their biological sex. This distress and mismatch is clinically known as gender dysphoria. Although it is no longer considered a mental disorder among mainstream clinicians, gender dysphoria is a condition that causes considerable mental anguish. To mitigate the anguish, there is counseling and psychotherapy. For those who want to have their bodies conform more so with their gender identity, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and gender reassignment surgery are available options.
Time for Some Nuance
Life is complex, and the issues surrounding transgender and transexual individuals are no exception. Fortunately, I found a video from transgender political commentator Blaire White illustrating that point (see above). I also want to make an attempt at nuance within this debate.
- A word on hiring and firing practices. Blaire White brought this point up in the YouTube video above. An employer has the prerogative to fire someone whose views with which they do not agree. It is their business, and they can run it as intelligently or idiotically as they like. I also think that it is a stupid reason to fire someone. Forstater's views on biological sex did not impede her job performance or made her less qualified of a tax policy analyst.
- Biological sex is almost binary. This is a point where Forstater and I disagree. She views sex as either male or female with nothing in between. I at least acknowledge that about one percent of people are intersex (Intersex Society of North America), i.e., someone born with anatomy and/or reproductive organs that do not fit the standard definition of male or female. Not every individual can be unambiguously be categorized as male or female, but the vast majority of people can be unambiguously classified as biologically male or female. Even for transgender individuals, most still identify with one sex or the other. As Blaire White brought up, "Biological sex exists. Without it, there is no such thing as being trans."
- Certain aspects of biological sex are somewhat alterable with technology. Part of Forstater's rigidity on biological sex is that she believes that it cannot be changed (immutable), that regardless of various treatment options for those with gender dysphoria, a man is still a man and a woman is still a woman. Technological advancement has made it possible for physical transitions to happen. HRT and gender reassignment surgery make it possible to change some aspects, most notably hormone levels and some secondary sex characteristics vis-à-vis gender reassignment surgery. In this respect, these procedures arguably render a MTF transgender person to not be "strictly biologically male" anymore, and the same goes for a FTM transgender person being "strictly biologically female." These medical advancements make the binary discussed in the previous bullet point even more of a spectrum, although again, most people still exist on one end of that spectrum. If we argue about this existing on a spectrum as opposed to a binary, there is still the question of where on the spectrum post-op trans individuals end up on that spectrum.
- Trans individuals still retain characteristics from their biological sex that de facto keeps their biological sex from birth intact. That which was mentioned in the previous bullet point does not change that other aspects, such as chromosomes and certain secondary sex characteristics and anatomy (e.g., there are FTM transgender people that maintain the reproductive organs in order to give birth), still stay the same, even after HRT and gender reassignment surgery. I discussed this last year when analyzing the fairness of male-to-female transexual (MTF) athletes participating in female sporting events. I concluded that it was unfair because in spite of medical advancements, MTF athletes still retain physical advantages from being born biologically male. None of this even gets into what would happen if a trans individual ceased HRT, which harkens back to biological sex and how the body naturally reacts. Even with these changes and the difficulties that come with the journey, trans individuals ultimately and essentially still retain their biological sex (see point below). This is not a statement about human dignity, but rather about how medical technology has not advanced at a high enough stage to make the transition from male to female (or female to male) a complete one.
- Biological sex has implications for health. One cannot simply wish away biological sex with cognitive dissonance because there are differences in health for biological men and biological women. Men have to be on the lookout for such things as prostate and testicular cancer as they get older. Women are more likely to have breast cancer than men. Colon cancer and Alzheimer's disease have an earlier onset for men than for women. I could list other examples, but I think the the point has been made. I would imagine that a lot of transgender individuals who are on HRT or who have had gender reassignment surgery are aware, but given how the discourse has been on this topic, I thought it merited emphasis.
- Respect and human dignity. Regardless of the debate about the status of their biological sex, transpersons are still people, and thus should be afforded the same respect and human dignity as everyone else. We should be even more mindful of it when discussing these issues, especially considering that the transgender community faces higher levels of poverty, discrimination, suicidality, and violence.
Cancel Culture
This brings me to my final section for today: cancel culture. Cancel culture is a type of boycott, a boycott most associated with the Far Left, of an individual who either has an opinion that is questionable, unpopular, or distasteful, or alternatively has exhibited past behavior in the past (usually many years ago) that has now been deemed problematic. The behavior or opinions are to be viewed so heinous as to "cancel" the individual by boycotting them. In this case, it means boycotting Harry Potter because J.K. Rowling expressed views that some have deemed to be "transphobic."
I can see the appeal of cancel culture. Some think it is about re-thinking choices or bringing accountability to people for "woeful missteps" who previously could not be held accountable. Plus, cancel culture helps increase an individual's sociometric status (some research shows that sociometric status has become more important that socioeconomic status, e.g., Andersen et al., 2012), produces social cohesion, and provides immediate social rewards.
As a caveat, cancel culture proponents think that it is more about diminishing social capital and their influence in their world than it is a literal cancelation. If it were about literal cancellations, such celebrities as Dave Chapelle and Aziz Ansari wouldn't have a career anymore. For those celebrities who have a strong fan base and good PR people working for them, they will be fine.
As nice as that all might sound, cancel culture comes with major issues, as Leftist transgender YouTuber personality Natalie Wynn (uses the name ContraPoints) found out the hard way (see Wynn's video below). Wynn describes cancel culture as a milder digital version of mob justice reminiscent of the French Revolution.
Before detailing how she became a victim of cancel culture, Wynn explains quite well how cancel culture works. The first step is to have an assumption of guilt, which is contrary to the ideal in Western jurisprudence of presumption of innocence [until proven guilty]. The second step is to use abstraction, i.e., replacing a concrete detail with a more generic statement (e.g., Rowling made transphobic comments). After abstraction, one uses essentialism to go from criticizing a specific action to making a more general statement about one's personality and character. In the case of Rowling, it went from "she made a tweet supporting Maya Forstater after losing her job" to "she's a transphobic, trans-exclusive radical feminist [TERF]." As Wynn continues to explain, cancel culture comes with immediate escalation that rarely allows for time to reflect on one's behavior, has a lack of forgiveness, and is commonly used to create conflict instead of understanding.
Wynn's extensive criticism of cancel culture brings us to my own criticisms of cancel culture. Those jumping on the cancel culture bandwagon are guilty of the same absolutism and exclusiveness that they accuse Rowling and Forstater of exhibiting. I will use myself as as example. I can make an argument that transgender individuals should serve in the military, that a transgender bathroom ban is a solution in search of a problem, and that transgender people should be afforded human dignity, respect, and the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that should be afforded every American.
But for the cancel culture crowd, that's not enough. Their mob mentality echoes that oh-so-wonderful logical fallacy of President Bush: "You're either with us or against us." There is no room for the subtleties or nuances that life offers. If I managed to amass the clout of someone such as J.K. Rowling or Natalie Wynn, I could imagine the "cancel culture" crowd would come after me for not agreeing 100 percent and would probably call me transphobic.
J.K. Rowling is otherwise liberal: she supports gay rights, abortion rights, is eco-friendly, and donated £1 million to the Labour Party. But because she does not see eye-to-eye with LGBT activists when it comes to matters of gender and biological sex, she is labeled a hateful, transphobic TERF. If you don't agree with the cancel culture crowd, it's not simply about an intellectual disagreement. They cast the stones and deem someone such as J.K. Rowling to be evil.
It is not simply absolutist in what views are considered permissible, but it is absolutist in that it de facto demands perfection. If you made an insulting remark two, five, ten, or fifteen years ago, you should be cancelled, regardless of whether social or cultural norms were different back then. If we took the absolutist approach of the cancel culture crowd and applied the purity test to everyone, we would all be cancelled because we are all human. I am not saying that everyone's imperfections or incorrect actions are equal, but I am saying that we all say, think, and do stuff that is less than ideal. There are those who make truly incendiary remarks or have done something truly reprehensible, and we should call them out on it. Much like with political correctness, there is an inability to distinguish between what is mildly offensive and what is downright despicable and egregious.
And you know cancel culture is out of hand when the New York Times puts out a satirical video making fun of cancel culture (see below).
I believe that social media played a strong role in creating cancel culture because it created echo chambers. It has also incentivized media producers to spread fear and discord because they get more clicks than good news. Internet allows us great access to what we want to hear while we ignore everything else. So many people find it easier to reaffirm their preconceived notions than use critical thinking skills to come to an opinion based on facts and logic, and that has only been magnified with the Internet and such social media outlets as Facebook. Combine that with increased political polarization, and it's no surprise that cancel culture was conceived.
Postscript
We have lost the art of disagreement, and the backlash to J.K. Rowling's tweet is the latest example of how far we as a society have veered from civil discourse. President Barack Obama was right for criticizing cancel culture last year. Obama was right in saying that cancel culture does not bring about change, that it does not take into account the nuance or ambiguity that reality presents.
It's easy to show outrage and cast stones. What is truly difficult is interacting with those with whom you disagree and find common ground. I'm not saying this simply because an inability to separate the art from the artist will make enjoying culture seem like a miserable chore. Talking with those whom you disagree is a learning experience that broadens your horizons. Working with those with whom you do not agree is the essence of coalition building. You don't have to necessarily change your beliefs or values by doing so, but giving into the rancor and absolutism of cancel culture only seeks to divide and to set back civilization.
No comments:
Post a Comment