Originally a comment by Artymorty on “Discrimination” is not always a pejorative.
It is a difficult question. I thought about this a lot in the New Atheism days, with respect to Islam. I see the issue as a conflation of actions and “identities”. Actions can have moral consequences. I think it’s trickier with respect to mere identities. Doing bad and identifying as a part of a group that advocates bad aren’t the same thing. But there’s a gray area. It’s at least circumstantial evidence, if not quite enough to convict, so to speak.
I think there are some parallels between Islam and trans here.
Regarding Islam:
On the one hand, the teachings within Islam are deeply misogynistic and homophobic. And many, many people who hold onto Muslim identities believe that they’re entitled to discriminate against women and gays because they “are” Muslim. So it’s at the very least a red flag when you meet someone who identifies as Muslim, with respect to their stance on women and gays, because there’s homophobia and misogyny baked right into the group’s “rules”.
On the other hand, identities are sticky things; people hold onto them for various reasons. Some people still identify as Muslim even though they reject the misogynistic and homophobic tenets of the religion. I wouldn’t want to see those people discriminated against simply because they still “are” Muslim. Maajid Nawaz is an example of a liberal reformist who still identifies as Muslim.
So it’s not quite a “hard” bias, but a “soft” one: I don’t completely write people off on-sight when I learn that they’re Muslim, but there’s valid reason to hesitate.
But then, Muslims themselves whose actions are misogynistic and homophobic often cry foul that they’re being discriminated against simply for “being” Muslim. Like the conservative Muslim activists who sought to destroy Maajid Nawaz by painting him as an anti-Muslim bigot for his liberal stance. Counterintuitively, they want a “hard”, morally-binding connection between simply having a Muslim identity and siding with misogyny and homophobia.
Here’s the trans parallel:
India Willoughby’s actions are what made him toxic. He believes he was entitled to take those actions because of the “identity” he feels he has. He believes there’s a hard moral link between “being” trans and taking actions which, from a secular lens, are plainly bigoted.
“Being trans”, to Willoughby, means being entitled to say and do a whole lot of terrible things.
Obviously, a lot of other people who hold onto trans “identities” believe the same thing, because it’s very much a part of that identity group’s current cultural ethos. We’re trans because we were born this way; it’s our mission to prove to the world that biological sex is either fictional or irrelevant; anyone who disagrees is Public Enemy Number One, and must be destroyed by any means necessary before they destroy us…
But not everyone who has a trans identity necessarily believes those things or acts on them. For example, there are people who identify as transgender because they underwent (or were subjected to, as minors) cosmetic appearance-modifying procedures, but who no longer believe that they’ve literally changed biological sex, and who may even be allies with gender-criticals.
So I’d stop short of “hard” discriminating against anyone simply for having a trans identity. But it’s certainly a red flag in the same way that having a Muslim identity is a red flag: it’s a group that has discrimination against others baked right into it. Yet, at the same time, affiliation with that group doesn’t quite come with the guarantee that one will act on its tenets.
It’s because identities are sticky and irrational, not easy to uncouple ourselves from, that I don’t think there’s a moral justification for outright discriminating against people — say, explicitly rejecting someone’s job application because of their identity — even if that group has some ugly beliefs at its core. Some people are outliers within their identity groups, “stuck” in them even though they aren’t entirely aligned with their core tenets.
(Well, there’s a caveat here: it should be at least reasonably possible to “be” an X without signing up for bad things. Some identites really have no room for outliers, and are therefore, as far as I’m concerned, hard-wired to moral judgment. Nazis, for example: it’s not reasonably possible for anyone to identify as a Nazi today without being deeply racist and antisemitic. That’s a hard link, not a soft implication.)
And I think most people agree: I don’t think anyone’s outright discriminated against Willoughby because he’s trans, but I do think that having a trans identity is now a giant red flag, and there’s going to be some “soft” discrimination on the basis of it. It’s certainly going to cause quiet hesitation among the hiring committees.
And that’s just the way it is.
Ultimately, these things are commensurate: the degree of trans culture’s affiliation to misogyny and homophobia is equal to the degree that its group members are going to be implicated in the moral consequences of misogyny and homophobia. I wouldn’t call “being trans” a smoking gun, but it’s still fit for the jury.
Tough luck, Willoughby.
Leave a Reply