Quantcast
Channel: Matt Kailey » Internet
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10

Ask Matt: Stuck in the Middle of Transgender-Cisgender Hate

0
0

Question MarkA reader writes: “I’m gender queer and I’ve recently come across quite a bit of inconsiderate behavior lately aimed towards cisgender people (on sites such as Tumblr).

“As gender queer, I’m stuck in the middle of these moments because I can understand where both parties are coming from, but I also understand that hosting negative emotions and propagating hate isn’t progressive or helpful to anyone.

“In these situations I find it difficult to voice my thoughts because of my gender queer identity. Some trans* folks don’t seem to treat my perspective as insightful or worth listening to, and I suspect that it’s because of my mostly cis-appearance.

“I don’t support the ignorant and often rude interactions that can come from the cisgender community towards the transgender community, but at the same time I recognize that responding out of spite, anger or hate is not typically an effective way of enlightening people. Any resources, advice, or direction will be incredibly appreciated.”

I have a couple of thoughts on this, and I’m sure that readers will have more. The Internet has been an absolutely invaluable tool for allowing members of various diverse communities to find each other, and it has also allowed those communities to express their frustration at the marginalization that they are feeling in the larger society.

This has been extremely positive for those people who are feeling isolated and discriminated against, with nowhere to unload this burden. But it has also resulted in a lot of arguing, personal attacks, and hatred being spewed out in everyone’s general direction.

The anger is natural. Marginalized groups have every reason to be angry at the discrimination that they continue to face and the roadblocks they continue to encounter as they try to live their lives. The difference is that now they have somewhere to publicly direct that anger. It can be very cathartic and necessary, but it can also result in misunderstandings and it can serve to alienate the very people – the people in power – who are in a position to help alleviate some of that marginalization.

However, that is often not the purpose of these conversations. They are not intended to influence the people in power. They are taking place because the anger of marginalization needs an outlet, and that can occur in conversations among like-minded people of similar experience. The anger and hatred being expressed might not solve the overall problem of marginalization, but it allows for a necessary release.

And while I happen to agree that expressing hatred just for the sake of expressing hatred is not necessarily conducive to positive change, in certain cases, these conversations can also serve as a brainstorming tool. Regardless of how much they might appear to be unchanneled rage, often good ideas and plans can come from them.

In addition, if someone is attacking you, it is natural to respond with an attack. If non-trans people are making hateful comments about trans people online, it is to be expected that some trans people will respond in kind (and not kindly).

While I think that negative attacks by non-trans people should, for the most part, be ignored or logically (and calmly) deconstructed, I can understand why not everyone feels that same way. So even though returning hatred with hatred might not be the best solution, it is definitely an understandable response.

That said, I can’t say for sure why your contributions to these conversations are not being taken seriously. I don’t know exactly what your contributions are, but I’m getting the impression that you are trying to mediate between sides, maybe, or to stop some of the most venomous comments directed at non-trans people. It’s possible that, if you are coming to the defense of non-trans people, you are being seen as someone trying to excuse what the other contributors see as discriminatory behavior.

I don’t know if your cis-appearance has something to do with it, because I know a lot of trans people who do not “look trans.” You could always change your Gravatar as an experiment and see what happens. But it’s possible that those involved in the conversation see you as having what they consider to be “cis privilege” because of your appearance, and your defense of non-trans people might reinforce that notion.

That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t join these conversations and speak up for what you believe. But how you join them might affect how your contributions are perceived.

> Are you entering into conversations that are not for you? I am a member of several privileged groups (as well as a couple of extremely marginalized groups). When I come across a conversation where, if I enter it, I would be entering it as a member of a privileged group, I have to question whether or not I belong there.

That conversation simply might not be for me, even if I think I have something important to contribute. What I consider important and what the other members might consider important could be two entirely different things. There are times when people simply don’t need to hear from me. So you might want to stop and think before entering a conversation – does your contribution add value and who does it benefit?

> Are you taking a defensive stance when you enter a conversation? Are you entering into the conversation to let people know that the group they are attacking is not all that bad and that the group has done all these really great things that people might not be aware of? The people who are angry are aware of the positive things that certain members or factions of the privileged group have done. But that might not be the conversation at hand.

> Are you expressing your own views, or are you telling others how they should express theirs? I know it’s a cliché, but using “I” language can be very helpful with diplomacy. Saying “I think” or “My opinion is” instead of “You shouldn’t” or “It’s not helpful when you …” can change how your comments come across and how readily they are accepted.

> Are you attacking others because of what they’ve said? Even in the face of the most vile comments, you are usually better off ignoring those particular commenters and joining in with an entirely different type of comment, as if you hadn’t even seen the negative ones. Get your point across without calling more attention to the hateful messages that are also there.

It’s also possible that you are doing nothing more than bringing an unpopular opinion to an already emotionally heated discussion. It might not matter what you look like or how you say what you say. If non-trans people are being attacked, or if there is a battle going on between trans and non-trans people, and you enter the fray, you are likely to get hit by some shrapnel.

You can’t control the conversation or the message. You definitely can offer up your opinion, but depending on what’s going on, your opinion might cause some people in the conversation to turn on you. You have to decide how important it is for you to get that opinion out there. Sometimes it’s worth it and sometimes it’s not. That’s your call to make each time.

When it’s not worth it, move on. Find a more uplifting conversation. Find a place where your opinion will count for something or where it is respected, even if it is not agreed with. There are so many conversations taking place all over the Internet that there is no reason to hang around where your thoughts are being dismissed. You can’t save the world, but you can save your sanity – and help a few people along the way.

Readers, what do you think?


Filed under: Advice, Ask Matt, Observations Tagged: community, discrimination, Internet, transphobia

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images