Politics & Media
Sep 02, 2015, 07:06AM

Freddie deBoer Is Not a TERF

Maybe that's not the most important issue facing trans people, though.

Rsz transgender flag.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Freddie deBoer thinks that I’m what's wrong with the left.  As followers of deBoer know, the quickest way to become what's wrong with the left is to disagree with him. I'm not the first who has hamstrung the left by questioning deBoer; I will not be the last.

My particular sin, according to deBoer, is that I read his writing too closely, in order, he believes, to find fault with him, slander his name, and advance myself. In particular, I took exception to deBoer's stance on trans issues. deBoer wrote a tweet which said, "Amazing the way some people, in the name of trans rights, simply reinstantiate the gender binary." I responded (via a good bit of back and forth) that this sounded like deBoer was blaming trans people, and the push for trans rights, for the gender binary—which is to say, for the way in which male and female roles are seen as natural. This argument, that trans people, and trans women especially, are responsible for reinforcing gender roles, has a long history among Trans Exclusionary Feminists (often called TERFs.) I didn't accuse deBoer of being a TERF, but said that he seemed to be echoing their arguments, perhaps thoughtlessly, and that he should reconsider.

deBoer responded that I was misrepresenting his position, and (after further unpleasantness on both sides) blocked me. He then wrote his post about what an awful person I am, and expanded on his discussion of trans issues.

"I have noticed, recently, that a lot of people have expressed support for trans rights in a way that actually ends up as a kind of gender conservatism. They insist that trans people just are a particular gender, that they were born that way, and that this is biologically prescribed, unchanging, and out of their hands. It’s another example, in other words, of trying to argue for rights through a ‘they can’t help it, so we might as well let them do it’ philosophy. It’s conservative, in that it robs from individuals the right to self-define, and it’s all part of really noxious, destructive historical tendencies, echoing the tradition of eugenics. I heard someone on a local radio show asking about a potential future where we have a medical test for the “trans brain.” I don’t know what kind of vision that is—handing gender identity over to doctors rather than to individuals, the potential of someone being denied the right to the gender identity they choose because they failed some test—but it is not a vision of justice, equality, or progress."

So was I wrong (or in deBoer's view, disingenuous) when I said he seemed to be reinforcing TERF stereotypes of trans woman? I don't think I was. Neither does Katherine Cross, a sociologist and trans feminist. Cross told me on Twitter that deBoer, in the discussion above, had trotted out the "conservative trans discourse trope." She added, "I really wish cis people like him would ask why only certain discourses are readily available/visible to him instead of blaming us… I don't know a single trans person who sincerely believes in the ideas he attributes to us."

Now, it's quite possible that deBoer would say that Cross has misread him just as he says I did. He could argue, as he does later in the piece, that he is not a TERF, and that he is not blaming trans people, per se, but is rather taking aim at a particular argument used on behalf of trans people. If Cross and I see something else there, then we're wrong and he's right because, in his words "I am the only arbiter of what I believe." He says he’s committed to trans rights. He says, by implication, that he’s a good person. Therefore, his words must be evaluated through the lens of his goodness and his support for trans rights. Anyone who finds fault with him is impugning, and lying about, his essential integrity—meaning, not just his honesty, but his very selfhood. Trans issues recede into the background, to be replaced by the more riveting, more important assertion of Freddie deBoer's pure, gleaming individuality.

It's funny that deBoer is positioning himself against gender essentialism, because his argument here is fundamentally essentialist, and based in sweeping authenticity claims. deBoer is the one true arbiter not just of his inner state, but also of the meaning, the resonance, and even the virtue of his utterances. Gender may be a performance, but deBoer's political stance on gender is so thoroughly true and inviolable that only deBoer is able to pronounce on it. His own consciousness, down to the very bottom, is absolutely clear to him, and only him. Those who contest the meaning of his words—who suggest he has picked up, carelessly, and without sufficient thought, some anti-trans tropes—those people are not just incorrect. Those people are liars.

I don't know what's in deBoer's heart. I'm not a mind reader, nor an angel, to judge his soul. He says he supports trans rights; I have no reason to disbelieve him. But I don't have a reason to disbelieve Katherine Cross, either, when, as a trans woman, and someone who has written and cares deeply about these issues, says that deBoer's rhetoric is familiar to her, because she has seen that sort of prejudice before.

deBoer has made something of a career out of identifying what is wrong with the left. I have no such expertise—and for that matter, I don't know that there is anything particularly wrong with the left. I think, for example, that the left is correct that words and thoughts matter, and that prejudice and stigma aren't just in individual minds, but in societies, structures, discourses, and trains of thoughts. Meaning isn't just in individual brains; it's in histories, cultures, in words and listeners.

As long as that is true, no one is, in fact, the only arbiter of what they believe, because beliefs are not merely internal. They do work in the world. For people like deBoer and me, there's a powerful incentive to insist that our beliefs, and our clarity and certainty about our own intentions, make us unquestionably virtuous. But I'd suggest that instead of trumpeting our self-knowledge, it might instead be worth taking a moment to listen to the people on whom our beliefs work, when they tell us our beliefs are working on them.

—Follow Noah Berlatsky on Twitter: @hoodedu

  • Noah, the way you describe this discourse, I have to agree with deBoer. You and Cross argue that he is accusing trans women of reinforcing gender roles. From what you have included in this article, he seems to go out of his way to avoid labeling those making the argument he disagrees with (he labels "some people" instead of "trans-people" etc.). It is this distinction that you and Cross conveniently overlook in order to argue the points you want to make rather than disagreeing with the argument he is making. You did the same exact thing to those who tried to explain the counter-argument to taking down the confederate flag by accusing them of being racist.

    Responses to this comment
  • hah; well, I think Freddie would be suitably horrified to be compared to Confederate supporters. The argument is actually the same. I'm not saying Freddie is a horrible person who harbors prejudice. I'm saying his arguments have a context and a history which he is not taking into account, and needs to.//

    Responses to this comment
  • Freddie called you a liar. Surprised you didn't mention this.

    Responses to this comment
  • I was trying not to get into the weeds with the charges and counter-charges. I mean, he basically said my entire life is based on bad faith and I don't believe anything I've ever said. At that point it feels like it's just name calling. I tried to deal with the substantive issues, not the playground bullshit.

    Responses to this comment
  • And what makes you the the grand arbiter of history and context? Do you not realize that both history and context are subjective terms when used in this manner? How can a dialogue be meaningful or educational if you are stuck in one rigid point of view? Obstinacy is a terrible foundation for enlightenment.

    Responses to this comment
  • And that's life in the Inferno of Post-Modernity.

    Responses to this comment
  • Hah! Texan, you are the gift that keeps on giving.//of course context and history are "subjective". What isn't? We're not talking about algebra.//My point, in both debates, is that prejudice and violence have a history and a context. "The confederate flag is my heritage!" is nice, but it's still racist, because that heritage happens to be about oppressing black ppl. Saying trans arguments for the gender binary are conservative ignores the fact that that same argument is used to say that trans people are fake and traitors. Those are histories you have to deal with...and if they don't subjectively matter to you, that means, unfortunately, that you're participating in a history of erasing people and the violence against them.// People who support the confederate flag are racist not because there's evil in their heart (there may or may not be) but because racism happens out there, in the world, and the flag has stood for it, and still does. Racism is a system, not (or not just) an individual moral failing.// And who's stuck in a rigid point of view again? I believe I'm right; I htink you do too. You want to show me you're more enlightened and flexible than me? Admit you're wrong and join my side. That'll show me, right?

    Responses to this comment
  • Unlike you Noah, I was not taking sides in either debate. I was merely answering the question you posed in this piece and pointing out a consistent flaw in your logic. As for joining your side, I would never join someone who accuses all who disagree of racism and/or bigotry like you just did. That is precisely the type of opinion that fuels extremists of all types and creates nothing but the prejudice and violence you claim to so abhor.

    Responses to this comment
  • For pete's sake. I said racism isn't personal; it's institutional. Participating in racism isn't the same as having a horrible evil in your heart.// Should we go another round of "you're a terrible person for accusing other people of being terrible people," or is it too ridiculous now even for you?

    Responses to this comment
  • Poor Noah. Once again you try to change the parameters of the topic to fit into your odd worldview. Fortunately for you, you did not say that " racism isn't personal; it's institutional" before and for your sake I hope you never say/type it again. Try telling that to the family who has a burning cross on their front yard "its no personal, its institutional" or the trans kid who is bullied at school "calm down kid, its not personal". How does this statement even fit into your support of BLM and the guy who gets pulled over for DWB? I will agree with you on one point though, you are getting to ridiculous for me to deal with. Go preach your hatred to someone else. I hope, for your sake, that some day you will be able to have a calm and rational debate with someone who doesn't blindly agree with your pseudo-intellectual B.S.

    Responses to this comment
  • The guy takes the time to write the article, then he takes the time to respond to your heckling, but that's not enough for you. While you lob grenades from the sidelines, with no skin in the game. Your obsession with Berlatsky is weird.

    Responses to this comment
  • Perhaps you too should re-read the comments. I merely answered a question Noah posed in his article. He then purposely misrepresented/interpreted my comment suggesting that I compared deBoer to those who want to hang the confederate flag (I did no such thing, if you can read, I only pointed out another time NOAH engaged in such juvenile tactics) I never "heckled" or "lob grenades" I only pointed out that Noah was guilty of what he was accusing deBoer of doing. As for "skin in the game" you know nothing about me personally that qualifies you to make such a statement. Either butt out or make a worthy contribution to the discussion.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment