Hi,
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, I’m specifically curious to see how blahaj.zone, feels about this topic.
I recently made a post Discussion: Do Not Reject Imperfect Allies
In this post I open up the discussion as to how we should treat imperfect allies, and made some crude examples one of which relates to people who are Pro-Trans but not fully.
What do you feel is the best way to approach these scenarios, and influence positive change?
The issue is, there are a large amount of people "JAQ"ing off (Just Asking Questions), sealioning and trolling. And no amount of engagement and discussion with those folk will change their minds, because they’re not open to that. And worse than that, it also normalises the idea that trans rights, trans identities etc are up for debate. So these sorts of engagements do harm, by making folk more comfortable airing “mild” anti trans opinions.
And of course, not everyone engaging in these discussions and topics is doing so in bad faith. Some people can be turned around. But research has shown that even when folk are acting in good faith, they still have a tendency to double down on harmful opinions when challenged, because facts don’t change minds. Emotions do. So until we can know the outcome before engagement, we’re more likely to make things worse than better.
And that’s why on blahaj.zone, it’s a non starter. Blahaj zone communities are intended to be safe spaces, where folk can get away from discussions about whether we deserve the same rights as other folk, and whether our identities are real, and whether it’s ok to exclude us from parts of society. We explicitly do not have the goal of educating people, because that is a huge emotional burden, that doesn’t really pay off most of the time.
If you want to change minds, the ways to do it are in the immediate social circles around you. The people that know you are the most likely to be “brought around” and they will be brought around by you simply existing on their radar, and making emotional space for you. The other way to do it is social friction. Protests, shutdowns, pushbacks etc. These are especially effective when they come from allies. Basically, when you make a social context in which trans discriminatory positions have negative repercussions, people are less likely to voice those opinions, and the opinions are less likely to be normalised.
The goal of blahaj.zone spaces is to create exactly that social context. And honestly, I think that banning someone who holds misinformed, but harmful opinions is more likely to change their mind, than a civil debate. It’s a low chance either way, but at least banning them sends a clear message.
this is such a great response, and thank you for all the work you do to create a safe space 🥰💞💖
Well said, Ada. I am so thankful that you created this instance!
Thank you, your response is exactly why I love blahaj.zone
"I'm pro trans but, there are some things I'm not 100% onboard with" is met with "Harsh criticism & Ban"its okay to be confused and want to learn, but ignorance is not an excuse for bigotry and most of us gender non conforming folk here are not particularly interested in justifying our existence and rights to the masses. we come here to be ourselves, so we appreciate the efforts of the admins who create a space for us and keep the bigots out. if you get banned from blahaj.zone i can say with reasonable certainty that due diligence was done to ensure it was a transphobe or other bigot, not somebody who does not deserve it.
It’s great when someone voices their support for trans people and our fight for equality both legally and socially.
That said, I’ve completely given up on trying to talk to people about “the trans issue”.
The problem is that no one researches anything before taking a position. They parrot whatever their echo chambers tell them to. They take moral positions on topics that they nothing but sound bites of. No one takes five minutes to look at stats or studies, nor do they take additional time to examine the authors of the studies and stats, to understand the motivations behind them.
I get it, most people don’t actually know a trans person IRL, so why take the time to educate oneself on something that does not effect them?
When trans people started gaining public support it was easy: trans people are people who deserve to live their lives. Trans rights are human rights! Easy.
But then came the bathroom bans, and now sports and youth trans care bans. These issues seem difficult, but they are just bad faith arguments used to sway public opinion away from support of us.
No one knows that we are like 1-2% of the population in the US, the amount of trans athletes is minuscule and trans children do not get “genital mutilation surgeries”.
But none of that matters, because people believe everything they read on Facebook or see on TV. It gets tiring having to repeat the same shit over and over again to people that ultimately will not stand by our side—especially when it becomes inconvenient for them.
I am wary of anyone who decides to let me know that they “support trans, but…”
I so often see people harshly criticize and alienate people that are mostly on their side, and might in the near future be fully on their side.
If someone is acting like a bigot and not willing to take criticism about that, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that what’s needed is for minorities impacted to stop being critical.
Certainly not morally, but there is a pragmatic question of how to best achieve political ends, injustice often creates situations where what brings about the best outcome requires less than perfect choices - in this case, engaging with “imperfect allies” to maintain alliances might be pragmatic even if it puts an unfair burden on minorities.
Not to say all minorities are compelled to do that labor, I do think it’s reasonable to make choices about when to invest vs when to protect yourself.
Also worth pointing out than an extreme form of political pragmatism can easily turn into a race to the bottom and undermine important principles - it’s not easy to know when or how much to sacrifice in the name of pragmatism.
Psychologically pragmatism can also be used to rationalize and justify toxic respectability politics, throwing the most vulnerable and least desirable elements under the bus (like we see with “transmedicalism”).
Completely agree, there’s situations where it’s important to have allies you can work with in common cause, even if they’re imperfect. As well agree that you can’t let tolerance of imperfections turn into complacency in the face of bad behavior or tolerating bad actors.
What do you actually want to know, here? How we should approach or treat allies who aren’t “fully” pro-trans? It might help to expand a little on ways they are imperfect allies, since context makes such a big difference.
For example, an ally that is “live and let live” but doesn’t think trans women are really women is a different situation than an ally who believes trans women are women but who has “concerns” about minors having access to gender-affirming care like puberty blockers, and both of those are different than an ally who is not sure they understand non-binary identities or struggles with using they/them pronouns for someone but is trying anyway, and so on.
I think Ada’s response was excellent, but was focused on justifying the Blahaj Zone’s no tolerance moderation policy, and I’m not sure that’s what you wanted to discuss or not.
This article might be a starting point:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/the-moderate-case-against-trans-youth
To be fair, they were asking how blahaj.zone feels about the topic!
I think your response makes the most sense, it feels like Blahaj has gained a reputation of intolerance, but OP seems a little confused and maybe thinks it’s about the community here rather than a specific moderation policy choice, and that the community thinks the moderation policy reflects how we should treat imperfect allies generally?
It’s not clear, so while I think defending the moderation policy is the best immediate response to the question (since it responds to our reputation), I wanted to give OP an opportunity to parse this in other directions, in case challenging our policies was not the intent.
Yesterday thousands of trans youth in my county lost access to therapy and gender affirming healthcare because the largest provider in the county, LA Children’s Hospital, closed its trans clinic.
Just to put in context what the people who are being ‘unreasonable’ about ‘imperfect allies’ are dealing with right now.
Anyone who wants to put steam behind the Trump admin yanking healthcare from thousands of vulnerable youth, including by trying to push trans rights into the ‘debatable’ sphere, can walk into the fucking sea. Anyone who sees this shit happening and decides the way to react is by debating trans rights is either happy it’s happening or so incredibly ignorant that reading basic trans 101 resources would answer every ‘concern’ they have instead of making trans people justify themselves over. And over. And over again.
We are not theoretical debate topics, we are people and they are trying to kill us by getting rid of our healthcare.
