Transsexuals need to make it clear that the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities are our allies and we thank those who stand by.
A well know transsexual contrarian has been writing opinion pieces for right-wing publications where she (I’m using pronouns based purely on what is typical for their chosen name) argued that “Transsexuals need to make it clear that angry mobs — on the streets or on social media — do not act in our name. What happened in Manchester was despicable, and we condemn it absolutely.”
The first question is, when she says “we” who does she mean?
Now the term transsexual has problems with it. Many good people who fight for equality use it for themselves, and I have no issue with that at all, personally I have come to prefer the term transgender for two reasons — firstly it sheds a “them and us” attitude used to separate trans people who feel they need to follow a “medical” root involving hormone therapies and/or surgeries from trans people who are happy without such interventions. In addition, and the original reasoning behind the 1965 coining of the word by John Oliven of Columbia Univsersity, it separates being transgender — that is having a gender identity incongruent to sex assigned at birth (natal sex) — from sexuality. Having said all that, I am, what some people would call, a transsexual woman (gosh I hope that doesn’t shock anyone) — I have legally changed my name, am on hormone therapy and almost certainly intend to have some form of surgery in the future.
So when she says “transsexuals” she is speaking for herself and (IMO) a small number of other trans people who align with her views which may be described as being “critical of the idea of a gender identity”.
The article in question, this time published in Lesbian and Gay News, was in response to events at a Pride event in Manchester on 28th August 2021. Now as these things often go, it’s virtually impossible to find a non-partisan report of the incident. Piecing together various reports from Twitter, Pink News and elsewhere, a male, Alexander Bramham, turned up at the Pride Protest March wearing an LGB Alliance t-shirt and hat. The Pride Protest March was NOT part of the official Manchester Pride festival and indeed was at least partly an event to protest against decisions made by the official pride event. In response to Alexander Bramham (who, based on this Twitter post, knew exactly the kind of provocation he was causing by wearing the merchandise) was eventually asked to leave the event following complaints to organisers/police liaison and was eventually escorted out of the event to shouts of “Trans lives (or rights) matter”.
Now my intention here is NOT to comment on the rights or wrongs of how the situation was handled. Whether or not Alexander Bramham (or for that mater the author of the article) believes that LGB Alliance is a hate group is also neither here nor there; the only think that matters is that a significant number of the people at the event — and this was an event which would primarily be attended by lesbians, gay men and bisexual people, as well as trans people and others in the LGBTQ+ communities — believe that he was promoting an organisation which stands against the interests of those people in attendance.
But none of this matters to the author of the article in question. She states that “we live in a society that is largely accepting and happy to accommodate gender transition” but given the amount of transphobic — and no we are not talking about misgendering here — as well as homophobic “hate” crime (that is crime which has an additional factor of being motivated by homophobia or transphobia) I would suggest that while the laws are generally accepting of gender transition, albeit legal recognition which is subject to strict gatekeeping, that many in society are not so tolerant.
According to the author “The anger that spilled out on the streets of Manchester was palpable” yet as far as I know, the author was not there. But if “the anger […] on the street was palpable” that is a indication of the strength of feeling. This (according to an earlier paragrah) was a sign that the “bigotry at pride” was displayed by the crowd, helpfully the article even links to a definition of bigotry: “obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own opinions and prejudices.” Apparently Bramham and LGB Alliance in their obstinate denial to accept that gender identity is (to many people, trans and cis) an important facet of them, and their obstinate refusal to accept that some lesbians and gay men base base their sexual attraction not on an adherence to reproductive sex roles but on emotional attachments to someone’s gender are not bigots, but those who say that their beliefs (and make no bones about it, they are pushing an ideology) are narrow minded and that inclusion makes everyone safe are the bigots. As Carl Popper observed, “tolerance of intolerance leads to further intolerance”.
Yes, its true that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals have different interests to trans people. Indeed lesbians have different interests to gay men, and bisexual people have different interests to them both. That is why most people do not think of there being an LGBTQ+ community, but multiple communities who’s interests overlap and who support each other in their struggles. Lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, trans people, queer people, intersex people, asexual people … we are not the same … but we are allied together to fight not only for our own needs but for the needs of each other.
The irony being that the group who name themselves an alliance are the furthest away from being an actual alliance!
Having a gender identity is not a “quasi-religious crusade” … the people who have gone to court to prove they have beliefs which should have the same protection as religious groups are NOT those supporting the importance of gender identity. No one is trying to “supplant” biological sex either; the argument is that “biological sex” (and really you have to define what you mean by that term) is NOT the only thing of import. If we’re talking about biology, is not the brain, and therefore our personality which includes our gender identity. “Trans women are women” is not making any comment about biology — in reality few people worry about biology outside of the doctor’s office — it is commenting on a belief (and one which arguably is supported by law) that society should accept and treat trans women the same as it does any other woman.
There is an irony in this “transsexual” asserting that gender identity is a “quasi-religious”: the diagnosis for someone to be transsexual was (until recently when ICD11 introduced the term Gender Incongruity) someone who suffered from a “Gender Identity Disorder” or, in DSM-5, “Gender Dysphoria”; both of which would require someone to have a gender identity in order to suffer dysphoria as the result of a mismatch. In other words: if you demand you are transsexual, not transgender, then you MUST have a gender identity, and in transitioning you are requesting people accept your gender identity over your assigned sex at birth.
The article then has the usual assertions about “sex-based rights” (they don’t exists) and how improvements being asked for in trans rights/liberation adversely affect women (they don’t) as well as claims that children are being damaged by trans health care for adolescents (it is very carefully managed and not doing anything as those critical of trans healthcare demand can be just as damaging).
Finally she claims that “the third group to suffer are transsexuals”. She goes on that the “goal may have been to transition and then re-integrate into society without causing a fuss”, but who really is “causing a fuss”? Was it really the “mob” (sic) in Manchester standing up against a group who they consider vilify trans people and LGB people who support trans people alike?
Or is in fact the people being supported here who are making it harder for people to integrate into society without casing a fuss? Those who run national advertising campaign saying that allowing trans women to have their identity recognised more easily in law are opening the doors for predatory men. Those who spend £100,000 to bring a Judicial Review against the equality code of practice that says that trans people should be included in society according to their gender identity unless there is an objectively justified reason not to. Those who seek to divide the LGB communities into the majority who accept trans men and women according to their gender identity and therefore trans men into gay, and trans women into lesbian, relationships. Those who are on the news weekly pushing the idea that by including trans people, Stonewall have become homophobic.
Who are really stopping trans people getting on with their lives quietly?
So yes, transsexuals need to make it clear that the angry mobs — on the street, on social media, and in the media — do not represent us. We stand up and say NO to the LGB Alliance. We stand up and say NO to groups set up for the sole purpose of opposing GRA reforms on the spurious grounds of “protecting women and children”. We say NO to the Christian Fundamentalist lawyers being paid to stop vital health care for trans young people. We say NO to politicians who care more about if a bill says “pregnant people” or “pregnant women” than ensuring everyone who needs support while pregnant gets it. We say NO to comedians who have been offended by being told they are transphobic. We say NO to being forced into disabled toilets. We say NO to the demonisation of cis people who date us.
We say YES to our lesbian gay and bisexual allies who stand against transphobia. We say YES to Stonewall’s support and raising awareness of laws passed to try to ensure equality. We say YES to doctors who are willing to put their professional reputations and more on the line when they see the lack of NHS provision for health care for adults and children.
Above all… we say NO to YOU representing us!
