Part two of a two-part series. Read part one.
It should be no surprise to anyone that trans* people find the "Debate™" to be triggering and toxic.
Of course, Ezra Levant might be a bad example. Social conservatives aren't usually as candid (or as classless) as Levant, and instead hide these views in coded language about sinister, ideologically-driven social agendas, a nebulous transgender "craze," totalitarianism (as if trans* people had that much power!), political correctness, "cultural Marxists," and persecution by "compelled speech" (which -- on a legal level, at least -- is factually incorrect, regardless of what overzealous professors at WLU reportedly told Lindsay Shepherd).
From his argument before the Senate against trans* human rights protections, Peterson himself makes it clear that he sees gender identity as as something that cannot be substantiated scientifically, and therefore as something that should not be dignified by giving it any credence:
"It's incorrect in that identity is not and will never be something that people define subjectively because your identity is something you actually have to act out in the world as a set of procedural tools, which most people learn -- and I'm being technical about this -- between the ages of two and four. It's a fundamental human reality. It's well recognized by the relevant, say, developmental psychological authorities. The idea that identity is something you define purely subjectively is an idea without status as far as I'm concerned.
"I also think it's unbelievably dangerous for us to move towards representing a social constructionist view of identity in our legal system. The social constructionist view insists that human identity is nothing but a consequence of socialization, and there's an inordinate amount of scientific evidence suggesting that that happens to not be the case. So the reason that this is being instantiated into law is because the people who are promoting that sort of perspective, or at least in part because the people promoting that sort of perspective, know perfectly well they've lost the battle completely on scientific grounds.
"...the social constructionist view of gender isn't another opinion; it's just wrong...99.7 per cent of people who inhabit a body with a given biological sex identify with that biological sex. They're incredibly tightly linked.
"If you can't attribute causality to a link that's that tight, you have to dispense with the notion of causality altogether. Of the people who identify as male or female who are also biologically male or female, the vast majority of them have the sexual preference that would go along with that and the gender identity and the gender expression.
"These levels of analysis are unbelievably tightly linked, and the evidence that biological factors play a role in determining gender identity is, in a word, overwhelming. There isn't a serious scientist alive who would dispute that. You get disputes about it, but they always stem, essentially, from the humanities. As far as I'm concerned -- I've looked at it very carefully -- those arguments are entirely ideologically driven. It's a tenet of the ideology that identity is socially constructed, and that's partly why it's been instantiated into law, because there's no way they can win the argument but they can certainly win the propaganda war..."
I don't know about you, but to me, that says that if there are so few trans* people and they can't prove their existence on a scientific level that Peterson is willing to accept, then he shouldn't have to accept their existence or treat them as anything other than deluded people.
For what it's worth, to make this argument, Peterson has to disregard decades of medical case histories which have consistently demonstrated two key points: first, that suppression and reparative therapies are extremely harmful to trans-identified individuals; and second, acceptance and accommodation alleviates distress to the point that it (social stigma and circumstance aside) allows them to reach a kind of "square one," from which they hopefully move on to happier and productive lives.
There is some discussion about the medical study of gender identity here, here, here, here, and elsewhere, but the bottom line is that the overwhelming weight of case histories has been so compelling that the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and all other major medical professional organizations (with the lone exception of an astroturf reparative therapy advocacy group with the official-sounding name of the American College of Pediatricians) call for the accommodation of, medical access for, and acceptance of trans* people. So, even though you can't circle someone's gender identity on a radiograph, the medical evidence is there -- and when it comes to human rights, it also isn't the point.
Indeed, it's become a common adage for trans* folk to say that we only hear about ten "regret" stories a year, and nine of them are Walt Heyer (although since the backlash to trans* human rights protections arose, that ratio has become more like 70 out of 80).
With all of that said, freedom of speech is a critically important part of Canadian life -- and not just in academic settings. The people who are first to lose it are typically those who are marginalized, those who never really had much visibility, or a public voice, or access to platforms to speak out in their defense. Whatever else they may feel about it, trans* people must take the side of freedom of speech, because their continued existence and eventual acceptance depends on it. What is critically important, then, is to seek true freedom of speech, which as Abigail Curlew points out is not a neutral proposition that all parties come to with equal enfranchisement:
"From a sociological perspective, our society suffers from extreme stratification along the lines of race, gender, sexuality, and class. Your identity shapes where you might be located within society's opportunity structure. Where you were born and what body you were born with matters and has a significant impact on your material and symbolic wealth.
"For transgender folks, this positions us in a precarious reality. A great portion of Canadian society doesn't recognize trans folks as real persons. And when they recognize us, it is often filtered through crude stereotypes that emphasize perversion or mental illness. The point is, we must go to great lengths to justify and defend our very existence in everyday situations.
"...The pressures of daily transphobia and cissexism push us back into the closets where we are unable to express our voices. The "freedom of speech" of those who hold bigoted views silence the freedom of speech of those they target..."
In the end, the very reason that opponents use free speech as a weapon is because they feel threatened. This is because in recent years, trans* people have demanded to have a voice in the cultural debate, have increasingly been given that opportunity, and have been compelling when they are heard. Indeed, by telling their stories and having the audacity to assert themselves as authorities on their own experiences, trans* people have already changed the actual debate, making it necessary for opponents to use some twist of logic to re-establish a hegemony that uses the language of academia -- couched in theory that can be misguided or at times even deceptive -- but removing the authority of lived experience, to once again justify trans* exclusion from that discussion.
This, then, is the solution for trans* people: to keep speaking their experiences, and for there to be continued platforms available for them to do so. Protest, yes (with an effort to be clear what is being protested and what non-censorious remedy is being sought), but do not waste an overly unnecessary amount of energy on them (especially since that draws undue attention to them). When trans* people are considered authorities about themselves and are prioritized, then opponents' collective stance against acceptance begins to be recognized as archaic.
For people like Jordan Peterson and Ezra Levant, the thought of this is apparently terrifying.
Crossposted to Dented Blue Mercedes.
Chip in to keep stories like these coming.
Thank you for reading this story...
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.
If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.
We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.