Let's Take a Fair Look at the 'Trans Backlash'

In recent years, there has been much talk in certain circles about the backlash to trans activism, and what it actually entails. Anti-trans bills in red state America, increasing opposition to trans women in women’s sports, and even the decline in Republican support for gay marriage have all been blamed on this backlash, to varying extents. However, is it true? This is what I want to examine today.

Firstly, if we want to look at a phenomenon, and its effects appears to vary geographically, we need to look at the phenomenon separately for each relevant geographical region. I think the trans discourse has played out quite differently in blue state America, red state America, Britain, and Australia/NZ (and perhaps also in different European countries, although I won’t comment on that because I’m much less familiar with the state of the trans discourse in Europe). Trans activist overreach appears to have mainly occurred in blue state America, especially in the deep blue cities, and in the UK. Trans backlash has mainly occurred in red state America, and also in the UK. Meanwhile, the trans conversation has remained on the margins of mainstream politics in Australia and New Zealand. The ‘trans wars’ are still happening down under, but not as a headline issue. As you can see, just looking at the ‘Anglosphere’ countries, there seems to be very different pictures depending on where you are geographically. While the online world seems to mash news and events from all these places together, in the real world people still live in geographically separate places, and the state of the trans discourse and associated politics varies a lot by where one lives. For example, trans rights were still improving up until recently in blue state America, Australia and New Zealand, and appear to be stable and in a good state in most of Canada, while they have clearly been backsliding in red state America and the UK.

I think the clear geographical separation of cause (trans activist overreach) and effect (the most severe manifestations of trans backlash) in America warrants closer inspection. While most trans activist overreach has occurred in deep blue cities in blue states, the level of trans backlash in these places appears to be relatively mild. Surely, polls have shown trans acceptance and support for trans rights going backwards slightly even amongst Democrats, but this change has been of a limited magnitude, and is certainly dwarfed by the change amongst Republicans. Moreover, the most prominent anti-trans cultural events (e.g. the Bud Light backlash and the Target Pride Collection boycott) have mainly happened in red states and right-leaning circles, and anti-trans laws have basically been passed only in red states, even though trans overreach has scarcely been heard of in many of those states. If the correlation between trans activist overreach as cause and trans backlash as effect were straightforward, then wouldn’t one expect the backlash to be the greatest in the areas where the overreach is the greatest?

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a defense of trans activist overreach. I’ve regularly criticized trans activist overreach, especially where it has negatively impacted free speech. And there is definitely actual organic backlash happening, even in blue cities in blue states. The fact that Democratic support for trans issues is going backwards at all is a worrying sign, even if it is not totally backsliding Republican-style. Remember that Democratic support for gay marriage has never gone backwards at any stage, for comparison. Moreover, in places where the overreach has been more severe (e.g. the UK), it has been met with a stronger backlash, even in a context where the political climate is otherwise quite liberal. I have also seen several cases where it can be fairly said that otherwise liberal people have been pushed by trans activists to the ‘opposite side’ with their antics. The bottom line is, trans activism has been misguided in the past decade, and it needs to change.

However, the simplistic cause-effect narrative of trans activist overreach causing a major backlash doesn’t tell the full story. In the red states and the right-leaning circles where the backlash is the most severe, trans overreach is often not organically present in everyday life. I have yet to hear about a single example of trans activist overreach occurring in Alabama or Arkansas, yet plenty of anti-trans bills have been passed into law in those places, for example. The ‘backlash’ there appears to be caused by right-wing media and influencers deliberately finding instances of trans activist overreach from deep blue places, packaging them in the most sensational ways possible, and feeding these ‘news items’ to their conservative audiences, clearly attempting to elicit moral outrage in doing so. I would call this ‘inorganic backlash’, analogous to the concept of ‘inorganic’ likes, views or followers on social media platforms. It is inorganic because it wouldn’t have happened if not for right-wing media doing its thing. And in many cases, the inorganic backlash has been worse than the organic kind encountered in blue states, as reflected in the fact that the backsliding in trans acceptance and trans rights has been much greater in red states. This is because, when people are exposed not to the real thing, but to a deliberately distorted reporting of it, many of the nuances present in the real thing are filtered out, and what they get is a one-dimensional, stereotypical portrayal of ‘the enemy’. Right-wing media wants this, because they want to rile up their conservative audiences into full blown culture warriors.

What we also need to remember is that organic backlash resulting from being alienated from the excesses of trans activism is very different from those with a culture war agenda trying to foment inorganic backlash. You might recall that Jordan Peterson and JK Rowling tried to be reasonable towards the trans community, before the severely illiberal response of some far-left activists pushed them towards full-blown anti-trans mode. On the other hand, I don’t ever recall right-wing strategists like Christopher Rufo or influencers like Michael Knowles or Matt Walsh ever having a reasonable phase before going full anti-trans. They weren’t even major targets of trans activists at any stage. It was clear that they weren’t pushed away by the trans community like Peterson and Rowling. Instead, they simply have an agenda of packaging trans issues into a broader pro-Republican package of culture war stuff. This is where the inorganic backlash comes from. It is all done for the benefit of Trump and the Republican Party, at the expense of honesty towards trans issues and decency towards trans people. This, more than any specific anti-trans policy, is why I think that the strong disdain towards the MAGA style of politics by most of the trans community is very well deserved indeed.

Let’s also take a closer look at the claim that support for trans rights is backsliding. This claim is often based on the two most contentious issues in the trans discourse today: sports and minors medically transitioning. (Most people appear to oppose Trump’s trans military ban in both of his terms, and non-discrimination laws for trans people appear to be largely popular.) Opposition to these two issues has been building rapidly, and in the case of sports, it is now a 80/20-level unpopular issue. However, I think this has little to do with anti-trans sentiment per se. Many people who otherwise have nothing against trans people feel strongly that trans women in women’s sports is unfair, and/or have concerns about minors medically transitioning at a much higher rate than before, and increased awareness has naturally led to increasing numbers of concerned people. If trans activists push these people away by summarily branding them as anti-trans, we would be throwing away valuable allies, and we will definitely come to regret it later. Fairness in sports and concerns about minors medically transitioning are legitimate topics of discussion, and trans activists should not shut them down. We should also keep in mind that there can be good solutions to these debates that do not inflame the culture wars.

From my other Substack...

The truth is, Trump failed to fundamentally change the Republican Party when it comes to their pro-war nature. Instead, the Republicans changed Trump, at least in this regard. As much as I dislike Trump, I believe he was sincerely anti-war when he first went into politics. But to survive and thrive in the Republican Party, one needs to adapt to its power structure. Trump is very adept at this. It’s why he is President and Ron Paul isn’t…

TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Progressive Conservative Manifesto, the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series. She is also the author of her autobiography The TaraElla Story.