Paranoid fantasies


If you’ve ever had a sense of deja vu reading anti-trans feminist rhetoric, it’s for a good reason: It’s all pages from the same playbook.

The way sexuality is used to demarcate the difference of the other and to marginalize the other is a widespread phenomenon with deep historical roots. In terms of the recent rally against transgender children, the language of these anti-trans activists is incredibly stock. They depict trans school children as pedophiles, as likely to engage in bestiality, as likely to participate in group sex. It’s the overblown moral panic language of, “it’s not only this, but it’s that”. It’s the argument that one thing leads to the other that sexual or gender variance is a slippery slope. For these anti-trans people, it’s not only that trans children are bad, it’s that they’re going to try to have sex with your children; it’s not only that, but then they’re going to molest your barnyard animals and domestic pets and, not only will they engage in these solo acts of sexual perversion, then they’ll engage in group sex!

As I said, they’re shifting the conversation away from the inequality trans school children face. Instead, they’re rendering any recognition of this inequality as a sexual threat to cis children. These are paranoid fantasies. It’s that somehow these children will invade the intimate spaces cis people inhabit; it’s the argument that these intimate spaces will be invaded if other groups –in this case, trans school children– are dignified.

The basic message is that the existence of trans school children represents a general lack of morality. The bestiality language has been part of anti-gay discourse for decades and the pedophilia rhetoric dates back at least to the 1920s and 1930s for gay men, if not earlier. These are long-standing anti-gay tropes. Now, the really strange thing going on in the quotes from that rally is that there is the assumption that because the child is trans –that is, the child is aware of their gender dysphoria– that awareness somehow sexualizes them for these anti-trans activists. I find that to be a really strange and interesting leap they’re making. While, in actuality, a child having an awareness of their gender dysphoria isn’t about sexuality, for these anti-trans children activists, there’s somehow a coupling of gender identity and sexual desire so that, if a child is aware of their gender identity, they must somehow be hypersexualized and therefore dangerous.

The logical leaps that these anti-trans activists are making within the political spear are so long and convoluted, it’s worth noting. For them, a desire to be honest about one’s gender identity is to mark oneself as being over-sexualized. They believe these children are wolves in sheep’s clothing. It’s quite strange when you parse out the twisted way they’re viewing trans children.

That’s from an interview by Cristan Williams with Gillian Frank, a researcher exploring reactionary rhetoric. Read more here.

-Shiv

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    … the language of these anti-trans activists is incredibly stock.

    The logical leaps that these anti-trans activists are making within the political spear …

    With a few more errors, I’d say a machine had transcribed this; but as we have it, it looks more like a not-very-well-read human transcriptionist unfamiliar with words like “stark” and “sphere”.

    We often see the claim that pedophiles fixate on a concept of children’s exaggerated “innocence”. The exaggerated distinction drawn here by transphobes seems a very short hop from that attitude.

  2. says

    I think “stock” is right, because a major point being made here is that anti-trans rhetoric is recycling old anti-gay rhetoric.

    Also, this reminds me of a conversation with a co-worker some years ago. Our place of employment was hosting several pride events, including a drag show, and my co-worker assumed the drag show was a strip show. I thought it was quite a leap to assume that a drag show had to be about sexual titillation, but he apparently considered it the obvious conclusion. t really brought home to me how prejudice is framed as innocent ignorance.

Leave a Reply