Blog

You’re not my type
Trans man explains dating preferences to cis man. For gender and sexuality, self-ID is the tiebreaker. If the question is, How do I know if I’m a gay man?, the answer is never going to be, Ask Blake Smith.

Saying ‘cleareyed’ when you mean ‘exclusionary’
The latest transphobic article in ‘Tablet’. He’s giving readers permission to reject trans people. He’s specifically telling cis gay men it’s OK to reject trans men , who can never be men.

She made an anti-trans statement in a professional setting. I said no.
No, that famous person doesn’t love trans people. I corrected the record. She said Germaine Greer likes trans people. She well knew that Greer has, in fact, been hostile to trans women. Otherwise she wouldn’t have brought it up.

Trans exiteration
I hear an -iteration with an ex- on it. I’m bad at moving forward. I’m a hanger-on to the past.

Trans volta
I didn’t choose the word ‘trans’ to describe my unique life path, nor would I have chosen it, but these days, this word happens to be the umbrella that works in the rain. A word you can use alongside ‘trans’ is ‘volta’.

Assume humanity, then ask about happiness
Trans people‘s say-so is evidence of our happiness. But no one should ask for evidence that trans people are people. Previously, I used Lydia Polgreen’s opinion as an example, and I identified and extracted these writing tips for you. Please note this key distinction.

No one needs ‘evidence’ that transition improves trans people’s humanity
Let’s distinguish scientific uncertainty from value judgment. Anti-trans prejudice doesn’t justify demanding evidence about trans people’s humanity. When we let go of prejudice, some common ‘questions’ dissolve.

Can an identity be true and not true?
On ‘constitutive tension’ in our concepts. Picking apart someone else’s identity? First ask: Why do you want to? What would be gained? And lost? What happens to your own identity in the process?

Gödel is sure Bach, and trans people are sure their gender
Reflections on the Pulitzer-winning ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach’ (1979). Their objection is an infinite regress. They’re laying a trap. If we needed rules about rules about rules, none of us could ever use language at all.