Trans people have occupied an astonishingly significant percentage of public and political discourse for a group that makes up less than one percent of the population.
For anti-transgender policy, 2023 was a record-breaking year. In state legislatures across the United States, 591 anti-trans bills were introduced, and 86 of them were passed into law, or about a three-fold increase from 2022. These bills address every aspect of transgender rights, including participation in athletics and school programs as well as access to gender-affirming healthcare and public restrooms.
It has been exhausting for me as a transgender person to see my community’s fundamental rights put in danger and used as fodder for discussion: If trans people become permitted in open restrooms? Should we be permitted to engage in sports? Should we be covered in the curriculum at college? Should we have access to medical care? We are treated as if we have a problem that needs to be answered or solved.
This strategy has serious flaws because it is the result of a larger stigmatization political culture.
Casting transgender rights as a “debate” implies that all parties’ viewpoints, regardless of their ignorance of the fact of trans life, are equally deserving of respect and attention. It suggests that there is a universal “question” that has not yet been addressed, and that the correct response might actually be to deny us our freedom and forbid us from participating in society as our full, true selves.
For speech does not just happen by accident; it is dehumanizing and repugnant. Instead, it is a part of the right’s intentional political method.
The problem that will enrage their traditional, religious voting base has been chosen by Republican politicians as trans people. They do this by relying on outrageous lies and science that incite widespread panic, such as the claims that trans women commit sexual abuse when permitted to use women’s facilities and that babies and children are being “mutilated” by gender-affirming procedures.
These politicians don’t want people to know that there is no evidence linking trans-inclusive restroom policies to sexual assault or that the majority of major medical organizations accept gender-affirming care as medically necessary and that current regulations make sure such care is secure and developmentally appropriate.
They don’t want people to know that their claims are untrue because doing so would allow them to play the hero and whip the American public into a frenzy. They may win votes by promising to address the trans “problem” with anti-trans policy or with our complete exclusion from society.
Harvard is not a sanctuary from anti-trans speech; I have personally witnessed it. With celebrations of “Actual” Women’s Day or by inviting misogynistic speakers like Riley Gaines, a vehement opponent of transgender inclusion in sports who denigrates transgender people and spreads the same alt-right propaganda, I’ve seen student businesses reject trans names. As they sat across from me in the dining hall, I overheard my own classmates express their annoyance over the “fad” of “mentally ill” trans people.
There are transgender individuals. We have been around forever. We deserve rights and dignity, just like everyone else. We have a right to exist without limitations or limitations.
In the end, framing trans discussion as a debate will not lead to fruitful discussion because it calls into question these truths, which is where it falls short for us.
So what is the solution? We need to redefine our discussions.
I am aware that some people are worried about transgender participation. Given the prevalence of anti-trans propaganda, how can they not? However, worries by themselves are not always detrimental or illegal; they can play a valuable part in influencing discussion of constructive solutions. The issue arises when people advocate against our life and use their concerns as justifications for broad bans on transgender people.
Therefore, kindly express your concerns, but do so politely. Lift them without demonizing transgender people or downplaying the truth of our experiences.
Let’s talk about how trans athletes can be successfully and fairly included in sports rather than calling for their complete eradication. Let’s talk about what age-appropriate, trans-inclusive discussions of gender in the classroom may seem like rather than removing trans issues from the curriculum. This is thoughtful, respectful discussion.
The trans community has long engaged in this kind of conversation, but our approach is constrained. We need effective expenditure in trans rights from transgender people as well; we may be left to speak for ourselves alone.
We can get a better Harvard in our hands. In my future, I hope to be able to talk about transness in educational settings without getting empty looks, get a ton of responses when I search for “transgender” in my course catalog, and see how campus-based trans people consistently and effectively interact with trans issues.
I see a time when one of the most influential and resourceful institutions of higher learning in the world, one that excels in so many areas, can also lead in trans participation.
Harvard needs to bring up transness in conversation. I’m hoping that by writing this paragraph, I can contribute to starting that constructive conversation.
I’m hoping that I can disprove the lies being spread by the right and allay the worries of those who have fallen victim to propaganda. I’m hoping I can shed some light on the crucial problems affecting my community—fundamental issues that are currently at play at Harvard.
Although I’m not interested in debating, I can’t wait to engage in conversation.
Crimson Editorial writer E. Matteo Diaz, 27, resides in Grays Hall. His row, “Translations,” is published twice a week on Fridays.
