It's always tempting to debate bigots about their bigotry, but honestly the best thing you can do is often to directly help those affected by said bigotry.

Bigotry doesn't exist to be debated. People who are bigots do not care about debate - they care about humiliating their opponents. You cannot outsmart somebody who doesn't give a flying fuck about their position being incorrect. You will be playing a completely different game by trying to debate somebody out of their bigotry.

The best thing you can do is to show up for the marginalized. Check in on them, talk to them, and engage with them as people. Ask them if they would like help and then respect their answer to the best of your capabilities. Oftentimes, that will be sufficient enough and will go a long way.

sorry if this is not a question you like to be asked/topic you want to discuss. but how do we bash back against the ‘lgb drop the t’ people and other terfs? genuinely, like, do we just ignore them? is it possible to have a productive conversation?

honestly i'm not a strong debater, esp in a face-to-face context where i don't have the opportunity to revise and rephrase my arguments in writing. i also think it's generally pointless to argue with people who are avowed transmisogynists / general transphobes. there are obviously many different ways people come to embrace actively anti-trans politics (as opposed to the level of passively accepted transphobia that just exists as part of the social background) but ime often this hinges on a flat refusal to take seriously the idea that social positions and entities (like 'cis' genders) are immanently socially and historically contingent, and that defying a birth identification is therefore no less legitimate than performing it. i am always willing to talk to people who have questions about principles of a constructivist argument, but i've found it's a waste of breath to try to convince someone of this type of position if they're simply unwilling to even engage with the notion that their social realities are actively constructed and maintained rather than being immutable and transhistorical truths. in the case of 'drop the t' types specifically, this often takes the form of the 'born this way' narrative deployed to 'defend' cis lgb people---because again, any notion of sexuality involving agency or active choice would also be disturbing to this genre of transphobe. ime these essentialist positions are also why so many transphobic arguments will rapidly expand and reframe into broad attacks on 'postmodernism' and specifically name foucault (this is also a condemnation of the way liberal academics understand and use his work, lol). also worth noting that many many transphobes are openly operating with a politics based on their own personal disgust and discomfort, and though i might simply point out to them that personal feelings don't dictate political or social realities, my experience is that arguing someone out of a disgust-based prejudice or opinion is virtually impossible. like, these are not 'rational' arguments; they're ex post facto justifications for a reaction to trans bodies and lives as aberrant and perverted. i think it's generally more productive to focus on preventing harm (like, is a trans woman being ostracised or denied housing or starving for lack of income? can you do something to rectify that?) and making transphobes' positions as marginal as possible by just shutting them down. but again, i'm not a good debater! so maybe someone else has a better strategy for countering these people.

Hi Pia, I was talking to a friend the other day and we were debating whether it was ok or not to enjoy media made by people with different political views than your own.

She said it wasn't but I said it depends on the person but also because I think we shouldn't self-censor ourselves or judge the quality of the media by the opinions of the person/s making it. As someone who's studied media what are your takes on this? Thanks in advance ( ^_^)

Anon, this subject is way too broad for me to answer in a single post response.

It also highly depends on what the media is, and what the politics are. There's a difference between consuming something (and giving money to someone) who's just a mild asshole, and someone who is a literal rapist and has never experienced consequences for it, or someone who is literally giving money to movements that will indirectly cause the deaths of trans teenagers and is still actively doing that / not dead yet.

If you're the kind of person to give money to someone who will contribute - and has contributed - to the deaths of trans teenagers, well it's a free world and you can do that, but maybe don't expect to keep a lot of your trans friends and trans ally friends, and you yourself would not be a trans ally. You're not self-censoring, and the world isn't stopping you from doing that, but you might be someone who needs to feel more empathy for the people around you, or work on understanding why giving money to folks with monstrous politics leads to more monstrous politics.

If you don't want to live in that kind of world, you have choices you can make. But they're your choices.

It's not 'censoring' myself to choose not to participate in the works of something by someone who is doing things that could lead to a less safe world for me and fellow trans people as an example. I'm making a choice because I care about other people and because I genuinely would not enjoy the works of a person who created stuff who has said online: 'If you participate in my created works I'm going to assume you support my views (and so will everyone else).'

Making personal choices like this is not censoring, anon. (And I'm pro-censorship, lol, so even if it was, I'd still be like 'yeah contextually sometimes you have to' - censoring =/= banning). Technically censorship is something that can only be done by controlling bodies and government authorities anyway.

But we have to make choices all the time. If your friend is raped by another friend of yours, but that second friend buys you dinner all the time, do you keep seeing that second friend because like, hey free dinner! If your answer to this question is 'of course I would' - then like, well, I don't know what to say to that. We probably can't have a meaningful conversation about compassion or humanity.

Different levels of politics have different ramifications to different areas of society and different people. I'm trans, so I'm not going to support transphobic creators. It's really that simple for me. I don't want my fellow trans people to keep getting hurt by anti-trans rhetoric, and I'm pretty tired of it myself, so I avoid it, and I avoid the people who support folks who literally enable it to keep happening. It's an active issue with active and current repercussions. We're not talking in this instance about the politics of a dead author who can't hurt anyone anymore, or someone in prison, or someone who is so old they have disappeared offline into the ether.

If, on the other hand, I find out someone's a Republican but in all other ways they're mostly just living their life and not trying to actively harm people by funneling all of their personal money into things that will like...cause suicides due to promoting say, transphobia, then yeah, I might still engage with their stuff or support their stuff.

Likewise, if I watch or give money to a movie made by Weinstein, I will often think of all the other crew members and actors who had nothing to do with that behaviour who still deserve residuals or royalties.

Some cases are complicated, but some aren't. Some really are 'this person has said they will give their money to causes and governments that want to hurt us and eradicate us' and supporting that is the action of a transphobic person, even if that person doesn't feel transphobic. If the actions cause more hate towards trans people, it's a transphobic action, and it's kind of that simple.' And trust me, you can be trans and still be transphobic. We see internalised phobias all the time, everywhere.

Yes, I'm talking about JKR here, because I find this kind of question is usually about some obviously monstrous living person who is still doing monstrous things in a very ongoing way, vs. just a regular 'hey I found out this writer is pro-fracking and I hate fracking what do I do' or 'hey this author writes a ship I don't like should I hate them.'

(Look this might not be about JKR but it's certainly the first thing that's going to come to most trans people's minds and I'm trans, anon).

Terminally Online, Pseudo-politcal Rant.

I was watching a video essay the other day about how right-wing talking points are bad. Its conclusion was that they don't have to be good or compelling arguments because they're appealing to people who already agree with them. To a certain extent, they're correct. It does seem that as of late, the right-wing has resorted less to debating people on the street or on college campuses and more to circling their hatred for trans people and other "degenerate" groups.

In a way, that might signal a good thing. A party that's increasingly incapable of defending itself? Doesn't seem very strong to me. They're still pretty being, of course, if MAGA and Project 2025 are to indicate anything (for fucks sake, give me money for a passport). I do wonder where they'll be in the next 10 years or when Donald Trump dies. A lot of Republican politicians have been having "negative rizz" as of late. I'm side-tracking, though.

The problem I have with that essayist leaving the conversation there is that it might perpetuate this very Twitter, lazy leftist idea that there's no point in refuting bad talking points or educating people about a subject. That's likely not what that person meant, but it's where that idea could lead.

I'm not saying that people should just go around, looking for right-wingers to debunk and dunk on. That carries its own set of problems by making the left wing look catty and disingenuous. People can use their own platforms to talk about various issues and the right lens to see something. The thing is, not engaging and just yelling in an echo chamber, over time can make the left wing look incoherent and nonsensical.

Imagine you're just a normal, center-leaning person logging into Twitter to keep up with your favorite celebrity, and you see a right winger being like, "Western society won't be fixed until the perversion or trans ideology and crt is pushed out of our schools." To which that centrist might think "What the fuck is crt and trans ideology? This person sounds outlandish." Then they see a left-winger all like, "The rates of women who have reported being SA'd are abysmal, but let's not forget about our black and indigenous sisters who were trafficked and never had a search done for them." To which the centrist might say, "Why is this person centering black and native women on an issue that affects all women? This person also sounds outlandish." From their perspective, there's not just one dumbass in an echo chamber, but two dumbasses in an echo chamber, since they didn't grow up around an outwardly conservative community and don't listen to enough of those people to flat out being transphobic or racist, nor do they have an understanding of intersectional politics.

Some might say, "Well this post is just making people engage with optics and identity politics. We have nothing to prove!" I get where this is coming from. A lot of great people and activists were pushed out of communities or silenced because people felt that they optically made them look bad. To the person who says this, though, have you ever supported the de-platforming of a leftist or liberal because of their bad takes or terrible behavior? Guess what? You care about optics. Part of the reason you wanted them gone was because, they were toxic and annoying to deal with, but another part of that reason was likely because they were garnering an audience who may go around acting like them or using their arguments, which could lead to a large group of people misrepresenting and hurting a movement.

We need to get better at distinguishing people who are trying to insult or belittle us from people who are asking questions in good faith. We also need to learn when to end a conversation. Having the last word does not always make you look good. If you get frustrated easily or you get nervous, you don't have to engage. It's just worth explaining what you mean, on occasion. Throwing in a statistic every now and then (rarely ever personal life experience, because not only is it not the best evidence, but people will try to belittle it).

I'd like you to think about the deliberately othering words that you and your followers are using to describe me (the anon who is debating with you about transgender issues). TERF. Transphobe. I do not wish violence on trans people. I do not wish for them to be discriminated against. But I do not wish to engage in the delusion that a man can ever "become" a woman. I gave you a definition of woman: those who are born with the chromosomes, gametes and secondary sex characteristics of women.

Despite what you incorrectly stated, infertile women and women with PCOS do fit that definition; it does not need to be changed. It is intellectually dishonest to insist that you truly cannot tell the difference between a trans woman and a woman, or that trans women did not grow up with, and still to some extent retain, the same privileges that all men have across the world. There is simply a fundamental incapability with women’s rights and trans rights.

I'd like you to think about the deliberately othering words that you and your followers are using to describe me (the anon who is debating with you about transgender issues). TERF. Transphobe. I do not wish violence on trans people. I do not wish for them to be discriminated against. But I do not wish to engage in the delusion that a man can ever "become" a woman. I gave you a definition of woman: those who are born with the chromosomes, gametes and secondary sex characteristics of women.

Despite what you incorrectly stated, infertile women and women with PCOS do fit that definition; it does not need to be changed. It is intellectually dishonest to insist that you truly cannot tell the difference between a trans woman and a woman, or that trans women did not grow up with, and still to some extent retain, the same privileges that all men have across the world. There is simply a fundamental incapability with women’s rights and trans rights.

One of the first acts Biden did was to partially repeal Title IX, which protected biological sex characteristics – so yes, there is in fact a threat to the idea of sex as a protected characteristic. Here in the UK, where I work in schools, I see posters about protected characteristics replacing ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity’; so yes, that is a threat, and that is what people are calling for.

I am not a TERF; I am a feminist, the same as any feminist in past generations, who would see the obvious issues with allowing men into women’s spaces. Why do you think they were created in the first place? Trans women are not inherently different from men. That is where I stand, and if you do not stand in that same place, then that is a sticking point we can’t move past.

I am not ignorant. I used to be a trans rights activist, loud and proud. I am not anymore because I am a feminist, first and foremost. Women’s rights come first. That has never been the case in society, and trans activism is just the latest excuse as to why not.

Given the fact that this is the message you've chosen to send me, it seems like you're more interested in telling me that you think I'm wrong than actually considering any of the points I've made over the last few weeks. I don't think this conversation is particularly useful to either of us, because, as you say, there is a sticking point that we can't move past; I do think trans women are inherently different from men, and they should be treated as such. To believe otherwise is, frankly, ignorant, regardless of whether you believe yourself to be ignorant or not.

All that said, against my better judgement I'm going to give this one more go. Let's take a look at the points you brought up here.

"I'd like you to think about the deliberately othering words that you and your followers are using to describe me". We are. You are literally a TERF: a trans exclusionary radical feminist. You are... excluding trans people... from radical feminist spaces. You othered yourself by choosing to be a TERF.  It's not an insult or a slur. It's a fact. If you don't like being called a TERF, maybe take a step back and consider why. Like other people who are part of discriminatory groups, TERFs don't have to wish violence against trans people or wish for them to be intentionally discriminated against. By participating in TERF circles and perpetuating TERF ideas of what it means to be a trans person, you're contributing to the systemic oppression of and discrimination against trans people. You can't have it both ways here. Either you "do not wish for [trans people] to be discriminated against" or you "do not wish to engage in the delusion that a man can ever "become" a woman". It can't be both, because that belief is what causes discrimination against trans people.

"I gave you a definition of woman: those who are born with the chromosomes, gametes and secondary sex characteristics of women". Your definition is bad, babe. Infertile women and people with PCOS do not have a secondary sex characteristic of women (menstruation). But clearly you consider them women, as do I. Your definition needs to change or expand to be more inclusive of the people you think belong in your group. But obviously you're not interested in considering what being a "woman" actually means because it complicates your black and white view of gender and biological sex.

"It is intellectually dishonest to insist that you truly cannot tell the difference between a trans woman and a woman". I don't think this is the core of what anyone is saying. We're saying that trans women are part of the larger umbrella category "women", and that they have their own experiences, appearances, and histories that are "women's experiences". I do think some trans women look indistinguishable from cis women, but I also think it's intellectually dishonest to claim that trans women don't have a different experience than cis men or cis women. Many trans women did grow up with the privileges of being men, although many of them also face discrimination throughout their childhood for being feminine, girly, or "seeming gay". But whatever privilege they had is something they choose to sacrifice because living as a man feels so unbearably wrong for them. Trans women don't retain the privileges that men have around the world. They just don't. They face an incredible amount of violence and discrimination, as we've spoken about and fact checked previously. Protecting trans women is a fundamental part of women's rights because trans women face discrimination for being women and presenting femininely.

"One of the first acts Biden did was to partially repeal Title IX". No. No he didn't. He rolled back restrictive Trump-era Title IX regulations and expanded victim protections. Title IX now includes protections for people who are discriminated against for their sexual orientation or gender identity, for people who are discriminated against based on sex stereotypes, and for people who are discriminated against for being pregnant. I would really think about whether you want to align yourself with the Trump White House on this issue. Regardless, these changes to Title IX aren't "threatening the idea of sex as a protected characteristic." They're expanding protections to include gender identity alongside biological sex. Title IX's purpose is to "prohibit sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government." It's important that these protections include gender identity and gender presentation. Very few people are doing a thorough inspection of a student's "chromosomes, gametes, and secondary sex characteristics" before they make a decision to discriminate against them. They discriminate based on how a person appears... their "gender identity" or "gender presentation". People aren't calling to get rid of "biological sex" as a protected characteristic. They're saying that it's important to view both biological sex and gender identity as protected characteristics.

"I am not a TERF". You literally are. See above.

"I am a feminist, the same as any feminist in past generations, who would see the obvious issues with allowing men into women’s spaces." It's important to me that you understand similar arguments were made against the inclusion of lesbians, bisexuals, gender nonconforming individuals, and POC in feminist spaces. Intersectionality is an important part of feminism, trans women included.

"Trans women are not inherently different from men." You are wrong, this is dumb, and I think you know that somewhere deep down.

"I am not ignorant." Yes, you are.

"I used to be a trans rights activist, loud and proud. I am not anymore because I am a feminist, first and foremost. Women’s rights come first." Those two things do not need to be at odds! Trans rights are women's rights. Trans women are feminists, too, and they support cis women in their fight for liberation. Cis feminists should do the same for trans women. Liberation for any women is liberation for all women, and the less power the patriarchy has, the better. Trans people are not your enemy here. Cis men are. Trans women aren't like, spies for cis men who are infiltrating the feminist movement and reporting back to the cis men so they can oppress us more effectively. Trans women are literally on your side. Quit punching down and focus on the issues that actually matter.

You keep yammering on about "it's transphobic it's transphobic" and you don't even provide a REASON for it. You're just waving around "I'm trans so my opinion isn't questionable" without even giving anyone a reason to trust it. That's fucking stupid. Especially when you start shitting on other blogs for writing characters a certain way, and STILL don't say why. I've seen tons of trans people not give a shit about genderbends. Get fucked.

lemme pose this to you: if a gay person told you something you’re doing is homophobic, would you demand they give an in depth explanation as to why it’s homophobic, or would you trust that maybe, just maybe, they have the authority here? that they, better than anyone, know what the fuck they are talking about? if someone that identifies as a women were to tell you something was sexist, would you demand and outright throw a bitch fit and act fucking disgusting toward them? or would, if you were to identify as a male, accept that maybe they have the authority here to decide what is and isn’t sexist to them. this extends to literally any minority. if a minority is telling you something is phobic etc, where is your right to argue against that as if you have some superior knowledge by comparison? 

i get to decide what is and isn’t transphobic to me. you do not. nobody else gets to tell me what is and isn’t transphobic. 

it is also NOT THE JOB of the minority to hold your and, and tell you every little detail of something. 

you know what year we live in?

2020.

you know what that means?

you have the ABSOLUTE WONDER of google at your disposal. you have all of tumblr and the many posts that have been made on this matter over the years as way to educate yourself. there are articles and plenty of other things out there available to help educate yourself on this matter. 

what you don’t have to do, is outright attack someone because they refuse to engage with your nasty behaviour. i’m almost twenty six years old. i’ve put up with plenty of queer and transphobia over the years of my life and i do not anymore. i don’t owe anyone my silence. i don’t owe you an explanation as to why something is transphobic. 

if someone were to approach me with genuine questioning about why i personally agree with the statement of gender bending being transphobic? i’d happily discuss it. i have discussed this with plenty of people over the years, and it’s always a very enlightening and open conversation. i’m the first to admit, we all are capable of doing some toxic things, of needing to unlearn some phobic behaviours. but i’m also all about doing so, learning, educating, in a positive way, with people who aren’t aggressive and defensive. 

i don’t owe you my energy or time, if you’re going to react like this and the other gross shit in my inbox on the matter. my mental health and day to day is more important to me than arguing with someone who clearly, refuses to be open minded, or willing to admit they’re wrong and adapt. being wrong isn’t a bad thing. we’ve all been wrong on things and needed to change our outlooks. 

this is the last thing i’ll say on the matter: nobody is forcing you to follow me, or engage. since the making of this blog, and as has been the case across all my blogs, i very clearly have a rule about not following me if you genderbend. it’s that simple. it’s not up for debate. i don’t want that shit near me, because it makes me extremely uncomfortable. you don’t agree? that’s fine. just. don’t. follow. me. you are entirely responsible for your own online experience. i don’t want you here if you believe genderbends are not transphobic. so just. leave. it’s really not that difficult. and sending more anon’s just shows how petty and childish you are, and that you’re just spiteful rather than actually wanting to learn and be better. 

You say listening =/= agreeing but you're still a trans masculine person who supports and engages with TERF's and I'm telling you as a trans feminine person that's not okay. You're giving them views, and money (from ads while watching videos, if nothing else) and attention and its not 'a lack of critical thinking' to say anything from a TERF's mouth is garbage. You say that to argue with bigots you need to listen to them, but you're supporting them. Don't give them a platform. Don't listen.

“Also how are you a "skeptic”?? I said Loco Greene is a transphobe. Googling her name and the word transphobe will get you answers. It’s not my job to research this shit for you, only to have you cover your ears and tell ‘there’s no evidence!!“ Like I’m not saying you’re a bad person, but you’re consuming dangerous ideas as of now. You can’t take what you like and leave the rest. It’s tainted.”

What? I engage with TERFs because I have seen one debate that involved a radical feminist? I support them because I agreed with that woman on things like “it’s not okay to tell people to kill themselves because you disagree with them”? I am not even allowed to *listen* to people with opposing views? What, would you rather I covered my ears with my hands and yelled “la la la can’t hear you”?!

(funny since that’s exactly what you think I’m doing…)

And yeah I am a skeptic. I asked for evidence, you gave me none. You make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. It is not my responsibility to constantly research every single person I see on the Internet. And anyway, even the evidence that exists is insufficient for me. I just don’t agree with the claim “Laci Green is transphobic” because of one tweet.

“Like I’m not saying you’re a bad person” yeah you are but lol I don’t even care.

I am not giving them any money because it’s as easy as skipping the ad on YouTube, if it even gives you one. Most of those videos are unmonetized anyway but whatever.

And I’ll just stop this here because “consuming dangerous ideas” and “tainted” sounds like something from a religious cult tbh. Why can’t you comprehend that I’m a person with critical thinking skills who is capable of hearing a sentence and not immediately agreeing with it? Like, I also watch a ton of science VS pseudoscience debates. Do you think I’m a flat earth conspiracy theorist because I listen to someone claim that Earth is flat?

I’m sorry but we can’t all live in our comfortable little bubbles where everything is okay because one day you will have to have a conversation with a transphobe or an anti-feminist or a homophobe in real life and then you’ll have nothing to say because you have no idea how to argue against them.

I grew up in Russia and I heard homophobia, sexism and racism from every TV-show and every second person I spoke with and I learned how to argue by listening to them and understanding them. And so far no one provided a good enough argument as to why that is a bad thing to do.

End of conversation.

tbh, i don't see how that first ask was hostile and warranted the response you gave them. they just asked a question and i actually kind of agree, there isn't just male or female, so i'm wondering too why you resorted to calling them transphobic and weren't at all polite, or tried to have a civil conversation with them. you don't owe people anything but tbh, there's no better way they could have asked that question and it was hella rude to snap at them, instead of either ignoring or explaining.

im literally trans + non binary i obviously know there isn’t just male or female given points vaguely at my entire existance. but the simple fact is: i make it clear in my rules, do not interact if ur genderbend. by extension, that means any defenders of genderbends have no place on my blog.  it. is. something. that. makes. me. uncomfortable.  i don’t wish to discuss it or have it justified to me. it’s a not open for debate thing. i assumed replying the way i did would just shut down the conversation i didn’t want to have. the initial ask wasn’t hostile, but to me it was: let me try and talk my way around this and explain why i should be Allowed to genderbend near you and interact. i. dont. want. that. near. me. there are literally a thousand other blogs out there, there’s people, clearly, who support this shit. i’m not one of them. go find another fish, rather than trying to engage with this one that doesn’t want it?

and let me be clear, had the initial anon come to me and asked why i think genderbends in general are transphobic, i’d have engaged by im’s in an actual discussion. but they didn’t. they came at me with attempts at justifications. i don’t engage with that. coming to me and just there’s more than two ways to bend a gender isn’t going to vibe with someone who doesn’t agree with gender bending full. stop. i don’t care what your attempted justification is. i dont. vibe. with genderbending. i think it’s transphobic. that’s it.