Okay, it's time for an inevitably long thread about Jesse Singal, trans rights, "cancel culture," and the very nature of oppression in 21st century media!

I don't like spotlighting Jesse, but I want to support the trans people confronting him *and* make a bigger point. 1/x

One of the big current problems we face is distinguishing between labels like "racist" (homophobic, transphobic, etc.) and "contributing to racism."

Conservatives have helped frame the former category as requiring intent: If you don't intend to be racist, you aren't racist. 2/x

But the narrative has actually gotten so twisted that conservatives have defined a paradigm in which if someone simply claims they aren't racist, then any accusation that they are *contributing* to racism is also unwarranted.

Pointing such a finger makes *them* the victim. 3/x

The right's new campaign against critical race theory is at the heart of this. If there's no such thing as systemic racism, then they bear no responsibility not to contribute to racism. If people are taught we are *all* accountable for these systems, then they'll be culpable. 4/x

The reality, however, is that not intending to be racist doesn't mean anything *unless* you are responsive when people call you out for contributing to racism.

Rejecting the label "racist" isn't commendable. Being a responsive anti-racist is. It's a significant difference. 5/x

I've been referring to race because I assume more people have experience thinking about and interacting with race, but the same points can and should be made about other -isms, like homophobia and transphobia.

Are you *contributing* to harm? That's the important measure. 6/x

How does "contributing to harm" work? Well, what narratives are actually influencing legitimate harm?

For example: What is motivating states to ban health care for trans kids or ban trans kids from athletics? What are the sources of mental health consequences for trans kids? 7/x

All that trans activists and their allies are advocating for is to protect their communities from harm and discrimination. That means challenging the ways of thinking that lead people to thinking voting for anti-trans bills or rejecting their trans kids' identities is valid. 8/x

It's great if you agree that these anti-trans bills are bad or that you want trans kids to be happy and healthy, but if you're still contributing to the kind of thinking that results in the bills passing and kids being rejected, you are very much part of the problem! 9/x

For example, if you encourage parents to distrust their kids when they express gender nonconformity, you are reinforcing their doubts about the legitimacy of affirming care for transgender kids. This is directly contributing to the harm these kids are experiencing. 10/x

This brings us to people like Singal, Sullivan, Herzog, and their allies. What they've been doing is distorting and capitalizing on the distinction I drew earlier between "intentionally transphobic" and "unintentionally contributing to transphobia."

It's rather nefarious. 11/x

This crew loves to claim that they aren't transphobic; they're just asking questions about trans issues, seeking "nuance" in "debate," and challenging an uncompromising "ideology."

But they're trying have their cake and eat it too: claim allyship but contribute to harm. 12/x

They colonize this "maverick" narrative under the pretense that their priority is the "science," thereby absolving themselves of the implications of their messaging. They are champions of the conceit that if they didn't intend harm, they aren't accountable for harm. 13/x

If you look back at how Jesse responded to how I and others wrote criticizing his NYMag and Atlantic pieces on trans issues, his m.o. was to "correct" any interpretation of his writing if it didn't fit how he wanted to be perceived as a supportive "expert" on these issues. 14/x

He has spent hours haranguing editors demanding pieces be "corrected" if he didn't like how he was portrayed. If he didn't literally say "conversion therapy" or "rapid onset gender dysphoria," then it was *factually incorrect* to suggest he was blowing those dog whistles. 15/x

These folks all express a lot of public resentment (i.e. cries of "cancel culture") and constantly try to prove they're threading the needle to avoid any responsibility that they are directly contributing to the very real negative outcomes we're seeing in society. 16/x

Why "cancel" them for asking questions?

Two easy responses:

1) The questions themselves are harmful by sowing further doubt (like in parents and lawmakers).

2) The questions *already have answers* that they reject by continuing to ask them.

They *are* taking a side. 17/x

It's always dangerous to assign motive, but their recent responses to new scrutiny — especially Jesse's — confirm their interrogation is not so innocent. They are *intentionally* contributing to transphobia while simultaneously demanding credit for not being transphobic. 18/x

For example, Jesse recently interviewed a trans researcher, but then used the interview as a platform for his own belief that ROGD is real, social contagion contributes to trans kids, and parents are right to think their kids are just "confused." https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1374187970270437376 19/x

"Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" is a FAKE diagnosis invented by parents who didn't want to believe their kids were trans. Jesse interviewed those same parents for his Atlantic story, and Lisa Littman interviewed them for her study to prove ROGD exists. http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2019/02/origins-of-social-contagion-and-rapid.html 20/x

When they get called out for reinforcing these harmful false narratives, they simply double down on both the harmful narrative *and* the claim they aren't causing harm.

But they're not just asking questions; they have a very clear prejudice: https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1377700984378466308 21/x

Here's what's so important about the "cancel culture" narrative: They have big audiences that they wield considerable influence over! And it's repeatedly clear that many in these audiences hear the dog whistles loud and clear and do *not* try to sugarcoat their transphobia. 22/x

Moreover, in addition to contributing to the broader narratives that have consequences for trans kids, they directly foment harassment. When they're being criticized, they sic their followers on the source (often a trans person), then take no responsibility for what results. 23/x

Let's be clear that it really doesn't matter if Jesse and the others "are transphobic." What's indisputable is that they are knowingly contributing to transphobia — knowingly, because they always insist their concerns are more valid than the concerns of their detractors. 24/x

If you constantly (and *disproportionately*) harp on detransitioners when they only make up a tiny fraction of trans experiences while openly rejecting or casting doubt on all the trans kids whose lives have turned around thanks to affirmation, you're contributing to harm. 25/x

If you think it's more important to encourage parents to doubt their kids' gender identities than to recognize the exponentially growing evidence about how these kids are benefiting from socially transitioning, you're contributing to harm. 26/x

If you shrug off concerns about the very real and documented mental health consequences for rejecting trans kids, up to and including suicide, because you just think it's an exaggerated narrative to demonize you, you're contributing to harm. https://twitter.com/sadydoyle/status/1377983761367887876 27/x

If people are trying to minimize the platform and incentive you have to spread such harmful views, they are not trying to "cancel" you.

They are trying to reduce the harm you are causing because you have refused to take personal responsibility for causing it. 28/x

Easy solutions include:

1) No longer talking about that topic.
2) Asking for ways you can change your messaging to be less harmful.
3) Finding ways to compensate for the harm you've done before.

Crying that you're the victim and doubling down on the harm? Not so much. 29/x

With information and communication as ubiquitous as it is, we have to recognize that "not intending" to be harmful just isn't enough.

We have to use "contributing to harm" as the primary measurement for words and actions and hold people in power accountable as such. 30/x

I think this is something we must do across all issues and groups of people. The specifics of how certain people are harming the trans community while trying to defend their reputations is just a perfect encapsulation of the phenomenon.

I hope this has been helpful! 31/31

LOL at the first thing I see after posting this thread is that Jesse has delighted in finding an audience at one of the most transphobic sites on the internet. Because of course. 32/31

If you got to the end of this thread and want more related content to read, go read @JuliaSerano's thread too: https://twitter.com/JuliaSerano/status/1377869901516349441

Who knew when I wrote this thread with comparisons to the attacks on critical race theory that Jesse was about to publish a story defending... [checks notes] a Trump-supporting professor who objected to a racial inclusion training!