Category Archives: Transgender politics

The Specter of the Trans Activist

The specter of the “male-to-female transactivist” has been allegedly haunting the contemporary Western world, we’ve been accused of attacking free speech, contaminating children with trans ideology, and ruining science by insisting on the fact that we are women and deserve to use the woman’s restroom. Proponents across the political spectrum have been actively working to rebrand trans feminism in order to delegitimize our social, cultural, and political concerns.

Before I get into this argument, I want to be clear that I do not think that the work of activists is any less valuable than the work of experts. In fact, sometimes experts are also activists, and vice-versa. Knowledge production is complex, partial, variable, and consists of constantly shifting standards and values. So when I refer to the anti-trans mythology of the “radical trans activist”, I am referring instead to the character trope and strawman set up by anti-trans writers who want to demonize any form of criticism to their bigoted views.

The media of late has been lit up with transphobic and cissexist op-eds that are openly hostile to our basic human rights and skeptical of the expert knowledge of health professionals who advocate for gender affirmative approaches to trans health care.

As investigative journalist Siobhan O’Leary highlighted in a recent blog post, this media frenzy has been revolving around a false dichotomy that positions trans activists as always opposed to expert scientists, even when a trans activist is a scientist. Both the mainstream media and the academy have failed trans folks because of its inability to engage in nuanced discussions over queer issues and its hostility towards vocal trans critics.

O’Leary writes, “We continue to be upset because no matter how level-headed our criticism, no matter how rooted in the academic research we are, no matter if we are published in academic journals or not–we are demonized as activists to the exclusion of scientific findings, rather than understood as activists because of scientific findings”.

Just a few days ago, I published an article in Vice Canada in response to a shit show of a transphobic opinion piece written by professional bigot Barbara Kay. In this response, I made reference to several scientific studies and an analysis piece to debunk Kay’s misinformation, however, I’ve still been accused of being anti-science in reader responses.

Because of the past decade of increasing attention to trans issues and forms of marginalization, we’ve become an easy target for bigots who interpret our basic human rights as threatening to their own privilege. This sense of aggrieved entitlement is the key stone of the treatment of trans folks in the news media and even if we are now protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are still at the mercy of an increasingly hostile cissexist public.

👾 👾 👾


Just a few days ago Kay published an op-ed where she bemoans that medical experts acceptance of gender affirmative approaches to trans medical care, grinds her teeth at the thought that trans women are women, and digs into some classic moral panics to conjure up vitriolic stereotypes that trans women are hysterical activists and dangerous sexual predators.

She couches her work in Orwellian references of authoritarian and violent politics and co-opts feminist language to accuse trans women as being misogynistic for merely being in public.

Kay’s arguments aren’t worth contesting, they’re just venomous dribble with cherry picked evidence and exaggerated stereotypes. However, my contention in this essay is that the socio-cultural climate is just the right degree of toxicity to camouflage hate speech in the public discourse. We live in transmisogynist era where the substance of Kay’s hatred for trans women is business as usual, and challenges to her work are either ignored or accused of attempts of suppression.

Of course, this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, other stories have been citing a fresh new study that makes massive claims about the existence of a new form of gender dysphoria. Behavioural scientist Lisa Littman published an article claiming to have empirical evidence for the existence of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) which explicitly impacts children and adolescence through so-called “social or peer contagion” that allegedly spreads through social media websites like Tumblr and YouTube.

In a reimagining of the “contagious gay” epidemic of the last century, folks are peddling the idea that being trans is contagious and it’s all the fault of trans activists and their transgender ideology (often awkwardly called “transgenderism”).

Julia Serano, trans writer and biologist highlighted a series of major methodological critiques in a now notorious essay she published to her Medium page. Among other serious concerns, Littman didn’t actually interview or survey the children who allegedly have ROGD, just “concerned” parents sampled from already transphobic websites. These online communities have rather illuminating titles, 4thwavenow, transgender trend, and youthtranscriticalprofessionals, and consist of transphobic parents who are looking to legitimize any hostility towards their trans children through pseudoscience that carries the veneer of expert knowledge.

These methodological criticisms quickly roused some concerns in the wider scholarly community as experts began to question how such flawed and unethical research could make it through a rigorous peer review process.

Brown University, Littman’s scholarly nook, has recently pulled down mentions of the article from its website in response to criticisms of methodological rigging and the study’s hostilities towards trans folks. And on top of this, the article’s publisher, PLOS ONE began a “post publication investigation” into Littman’s methods, methodologies, and analysis to assess its scientific validity.

It is important to note that this research only contains the illusion of clinical authority, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the body that sets international standards of care, published a statement setting the facts straight: “The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases.

And even if the study has been rejected by the majority of clinicians, it’s been championed by transphobic public figures and organizations and it’s contents are being used to justify the “concerns” of hostile parents who will inevitably force their children back into the closet. In a society defined by cisgender supremacy, as a recent study has illuminated, trans communities are facing a suicide crisis as trans folks are pushed into the closet to suffer in shame and isolation.

👾 👾 👾

Articles from big name media outlets, such as The Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal, and The Economist have been downplaying the academic criticism and characterizing detractors as radical activists trying to suppress Littman’s right to academic freedom and free speech.

Any opposition or critique to these ideas are usually rendered biased subjective nonsense, totalitarian, or anti free speech. And regardless of a trans person’s credentials, if we engage in these discussions publicly or stand up for ourselves, we are accused of being dangerous “male-to-female transactivists”.

Of course, this is not how the scientific community works. Free speech works differently in academic spaces where knowledge must be vetted by other experts in the discipline before it is solidified into an acceptable fact. This vetting process usually occurs through General Research Ethics Boards (GREB) or Institutional Review Boards (IRB), rigorous peer-review processes, and robust academic debate in order to make sure that what an expert is saying is, in fact, accurate. Anyone can publish an op-ed in the National Post and lash out at the trans community, but in academic publications, only the most rigorous work is published.

Of course, this process isn’t perfect, and sometimes bad research makes it to the academic press. But this is why PLOS ONE has decided to run a post-publication investigation. If they’re caught publishing bad research, it’s the journal’s credibility on the line.

To characterize methodological criticism as “suppressing speech” is a gross manipulation of the scientific method. Of course, these tactics seem to be super common on research that attempts to re-pathologize trans folks.

So to re-cap, the mainstream media is publishing a constant stream of anti-trans dribble, any critique of that dribble is considered the hysterical nonsense of radical trans activists, and certain members of the scientific community are willing to ignore the scientific method and proper methodological rigor when it involves trans topics.

Of course, these writers often try to dilute their hostilities with statements of support for “regular” trans people. These are the trans people who apparently don’t use public restrooms and try their best to meld in with the wider cisgender society.

For instance, Kay wrote near the end of her article, “In fact, [transactivists] bullishness actually hampers broader societal acceptance for the majority of trans men and women who do not feel represented by [trans activists], have no wish to die on vocabulary mountains, and who accept their biological reality as a fact of life” (p.s. I removed the name of the trans activist Kay was trying to run through the mud).

Though Kay’s article is an exception in that it is clearly a piece of hate speech, in most anti-trans articles, bigotry is embedded in the subtext. The writing might seem innocent, even impartial and objective, but will still tap into tropes and moral panics such as the spectre of the trans activist.

👾 👾 👾

This trend is not new but in the current political climate of Trump style far-right politics, it’s become fashionable to dog pile trans folks. The starting point of this collective anti-trans tantrum can be traced to the explosion of popularity around the now cultish, messiah-like figure Jordan Peterson.

In the Canadian context, the intensity of anti-trans rhetoric hit a spilling point after Jordan Peterson pulled a straight-up tantrum over Bill C-16, a piece of legislation to add the words “gender identity or expression” to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The extension of basic human rights to trans folks was apparently an unprecedented attack on free speech that would drive the country into an Orwellian nightmare.

Peterson put forward the myth that C-16 would pave the way for “compelled speech,” or the idea that people would have to use a trans person’s correct pronouns or risk imprisonment. Of course, this is far from the case. Legal expert Brenda Cossman set the record straight by fact checking the legal consequences of a robust human rights legislation that could help protect trans folks from active discrimination. Peterson’s opposition to the basic human rights of trans folks remains the key stone for anti-trans rhetoric by setting up the trans activist as the enemy of free people.

The results of this hot mess? Regular trans women must constantly and unwillingly confront transphobia in the media, in the restroom, and in public institutions as they navigate their everyday lives. The very act of being publicly trans is read as radical politics, whether or not they could be considered activists.

This trans activist versus scientist trope is a means for shutting down debate by delegitimizing the authority of trans folks to even engage in these issues. By using this trope in the media, journalists and editors have made it clear that the free speech of trans folks carry little weight or value.

“Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” and transphobic science: the case of fraught objectivity

With the recent and tumultuous controversy concerning “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD), the science, and what counts as science, has been muddied by researchers who are explicitly hostile to the rights of transgender folks. A few weeks ago, behavioural scientist Lisa Littman published an article claiming to have empirical evidence for the existence of a new form of gender dysphoria that explicitly impacts youth, through so-called “social contagion,” with the consequences of confused cisgender children inauthentically at odds with the gender they were assigned at birth.

Littman concludes, “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) describes a phenomenon where the development of gender dysphoria is observed to begin suddenly during or after puberty in an adolescent or young adult who would not have met criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood”. This “distinct” form of gender dysphoria is allegedly linked to “social or peer contagion” which allegedly allows the “ROGD’s” transmission to youth who are exposed to transgender cultural or technical knowledge. Brown University, Littman’s scholarly nook, has recently pulled down mentions of the article from it’s website in response to criticisms of methodological rigging and the studies hostilities towards trans folks.

And as reported by Science Magazine, the article’s publisher PLOS ONE began a “post publication investigation” into Littman’s methods, methodologies, and analysis. As editor-in-chief said to Science Magazine, “This is not about suppressing academic freedom or scientific research. This is about the scientific content itself — whether there is anything that needs to be looked into or corrected”.

The publication of this research paper and its subsequent uptake by anti-trans groups has immense societal impacts on trans folks and the communities we belong in. It’s a clear effort of widely anti-queer groups to re-medicalize trans identity (which was declared not a mental illness via scientific consensus in 2013), the consequences of this would strongly imply that children with ROGD are mentally ill and in need of medical intervention. This is uncomfortably close to a renewed push for the use of conversion therapy, a dangerous form of medical intervention which has been widely condemned as abusive and unscientific.

Recently, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the international body that essentially sets the standards of care for trans related medical and psychological clinical treatments, has published a statement declaring,

The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases. Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation

WPATH reinforces the lengthily processes of scientific inquiry, debate, and rigorous scrutiny that an observation must go through before being officially considered a clinical phenomenon.

Another consequence of this debate is that our collective public presence as trans folks, whether it be through activism, journalism, or scholarly work, is being rendered an existential threat to allegedly cisgender children.

Oh, those darn trans-activists and their SJW agenda!

I will leave the science-y critique to folks who are closer to the subject area than I am, check out Julia Serano’s critique of Littman’s poor scientific praxis, and Florence Ashley’s critique of Serano’s critics.

What I want to address in this essay is the rapidly expanding viral moral panic that trans folks and our allies are attempting to impose trans-ness on cisgender youth through the widely practiced gender affirmative and informed consent models of therapy. Littman, and her now broad platform of supporters, have muddied what counts as rigorous quantitative and qualitative scientific methods to make vastly unsubstantiated claims about the existence of “ROGD”.

What is concerning to me is that Littman’s poor scientific praxis is being un-critically taken as objective knowledge production and her methodological problems are being neatly tucked away in lieu of critiques.

This is further aggravated by claims that queer activists, writers, and scholars are anti-science, biased because they are trans, and against free speech (Serano responds to these claims here). Of course, this is a regular rhetorical strategy utilized by transphobic public figures to render trans activists, writers, and scholars as fanatics interested in shutting down conversations (aka, anti-trans bigotry) and putting forward “feelings” ahead of science and reason.

The fundamental issue at play is the prominence of vernacular or folk understandings of scientific objectivity. In other words, how non-scientists and folks outside of the academy think scientists do the labor of knowledge production. Through the vernacular, non-scientists often impose a romanticised image of objective scientific methods that tidy up the messiness of research and obfuscate the scientific process.

Fraught objectivity

Scientists (usually a term relegated solely to those who use quantitative, as opposed to qualitative, methods within the popular imagination) are already and always “objective” (unless they are trans folks, people of color, or women) and thus are arbitrators of “facts”. The problem here isn’t science, but how scientific knowledge production is understood by non-experts navigating everyday life.

I’ve encountered the hypocrisy of this mentality many times over Twitter conversations, where the expert knowledge of progressive scholars and journalists are rendered ideologically biased or elitist, while far-right public figures like Jordan Peterson are uplifted as the very pinnacle of the scientific method (whether they use scientific methods or not).

As many scholars in the discipline of science and technology studies (STS) have noted, objectivity and the operability of the scientific method is entirely contingent on a scientist’s ability to put together a sound methodology that is reflexive of their biases. STS sociologist John Law has pointed out in a review of the ethnographic work conducted on scientific labor within laboratories that methodologies are always exposed to researcher bias, which impacts scientific results, and oftentimes are made opaque by the mere illusion of being objective. This is especially relevant for the messy disciplines of human behavior — a field of study that is wrapped up in the seemingly infinite complexities of historically contingent and culturally shaped subjectivities.

Littman’s research is emblematic of this issue. Her methods consisted of recruiting participants from a series of blogs that are known to contain transphobic parents, in order conduct empirical research on transgender children. Littman’s cisgender bias is present in how she constructs her research tools, before an analysis is even conducted.

As Serano notes,

The fact that Littman didn’t even bother to post a link to the survey on any of the many other online groups for parents of trans kids (i.e., ones that do not push an ROGD agenda, and who thus might have very different assessments of their adolescent trans children) strongly suggests that she purposefully structured her study to confirm the former parents’ assumptions, rather than objectively assess the state of their children.

This contamination of Littman’s objectivity is further aggravated by a key analytical issue — Littman didn’t speak to any of the children she claimed to have data on. She only surveyed transphobic parents who presumably have zero understanding of how their children feel. In a response to Serano’s critique, Robert D’Angelo with the newly formed Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Working Group (made up of the same anti-trans scientists), published a statement declaring that research through the proxy of a parent is standard practice.

This might be true, but it also has consequences for the project’s analysis. Littman’s research is not a study of trans children, it is a study of the perceptions of transphobic parents whose children are navigating the complex world of gender dysphoria and cissexism.

Getting access to children for academic research is difficult, but not impossible. And if a research isn’t willing to do the leg work to produce a workable methodology, then I hardly see how it is appropriate for her to “discover” a new form of gender dysphoria. There is a chance that Littman’s research, if proposed to be conducted on children, would not have passed an Institutional Review Board (IRB) which typically governs how academics conduct themselves in human research.

The point is, this research had never been objective, and it is surprising to me that these issues weren’t picked up by the peer reviewer at PLOS ONE.

In the scholarly world, knowledge is meant to be vetted by experts. A scholar typically can’t publish just anything in a scholarly journal — their knowledge needs to be rigorously assessed. A peer review process includes a panel of scholars who blindly review research to draw out methodological errors, poor or unsubstantiated analysis, and potential ethical ramifications of the publication. In the case of Littman, this process failed her.

Free speech ideologies do not count the same in academic publishing, scholars are restrained from making willy-nilly expert decisions for good reason.

The ability for a scholar to set aside their bias in order to achieve objectivity is fraught. Our own capacity to be reflexive of the biases and hostilities that inform our thinking are often made invisible. It is very difficult to point out the things that influence our ability to be objective, because, well, we’re human beings with complex emotional states informing our perceptions of the world around us. This is among the many reasons that scientists review each other’s work, because oftentimes we are unable to point out our own methodological errors and mistakes.

Scientists are, in fact, human like everyone else.

I do not have answers for the failure of PLOS ONE to conduct a proper peer review but considering the hostile history of cissexism in research on transgender folks throughout history, I have some speculations.

An historical primer of cisgender and heterosexual bias and gatekeeping

Cisgender and heterosexual (cishet) researchers have a long history of conducting bias research where prejudice against LGBTQ+ folks had become embedded in research design, methodologies, and analysis. Since the late nineteenth century, psychologists and sexologists have been pumping out research that sought to either hide or eradicate queerness. It was seen as a pathology, and like other mental illnesses or disabilities at the time, queerness was exposed to intense degrees of policing, incarceration, and extreme social stigmatization.

The history of science is far from objective, it reflected the ideological underpinnings of white cishet men and served to subjugate LGBTQ+ folks, women, people of color, and disabled folks.

The science at the time seemed to be clear, if you weren’t a white, male, cishet, you were sick and in need of remedy. As historical sociologist Johnathon Ned Katz illustrates in his book The Invention of Heterosexuality, the very historical development of the psychological categories of heterosexuality and homosexuality was infused with notions of what was considered normal at the time (fun fact, the first usage of the term “heterosexuality” in 1892 was in reference to people who were attracted to men AND women, not straight folks).

Katz observes,

In the twentieth century, creatures called heterosexuals emerged from the dark shadows of the nineteenth-century medical world to become common types acknowledged in the bright light of the modern day.

According to Katz, the production of the terms heterosexuality and homosexuality are laced with the bias of its late eighteen to early nineteen century Christian moral puritanism which eschewed sexual desire in favor of the “reproductive imperative” (or, in other words, having loads of babies). These emerging categories were put to work in the psychological discourse of the time and eventually came to be used to refer to straight people and everyone else. Those terms carried with it a baggage that constructed moral and biological hierarchies — straight folks were considered superior to queer folks.

The science of this period (and I would argue the same for contemporary science) was first framed through a cishet lens that privileged their culturally-shaped position in the world and actively othered queer folk. Not only was objectivity not achieved, the analysis emerging from this research was taken-for-granted and rarely critically interrogated. As historian Susan Stryker notes in her book Transgender History, in the eighteenth-century, science had come to supplant religion as the “highest social authority” and had massive influence over the moral codes that shaped everyday life. So not only were people pathologized for being different, they were actively stigmatized.

At the same time, the history of medical science in the Western world had been plagued with eugenics and an unhealthy obsession with creating natural hierarchies. This was an era of scientific exploitation that categorized everything that wasn’t a white cishet man to be degenerate and morally corrupt. For an interesting and colorful exploration of the history of degeneracy, check out this Contrapoints video.

Stryker observes that the words “transgender” and “transsexual” came into usage during the 1950s; it’s not that trans folks didn’t exist before this time, but they didn’t have a language to describe being trans. These categories emerged initially as a way of describing “gender identity disorder,” however, they were eventually reclaimed as categories used within the trans cultural lexicon. Despite these changes in usage, the terms and the identities they describe carry the historical baggage of discrimination.

The parents that Littman surveyed are among many transphobes that tap into the historical notion that queerness is a mental illness to justify forcing their children back in the closet. This is a form of violence that push queer youth into isolation, mental illness, and potentially, death by suicide. The hostility of abusive and anti-queer family members can also lead to spikes in youth homelessness as trans youth are either kicked out of their home or forced to flee abusive behavior.

Though informed consent models and gender affirmative therapy have been growing in popularity, there is still an overwhelming attachment to the gateway model of trans health care. As Serano writes in her book Whipping Girl, “Until 1998, the HBIGDA Standards of Care stated that ‘[a]ny and all recommendations for sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy should be made only by clinical behavioral scientists’”. The gateway model proposes that a trans person must prove that they really are the gender they claim to (largely) cishet doctors, psychiatrists, and social workers in order to gain access to medically necessary treatments.

The history of gatekeeping is dark AF. For one, cishet experts were put into the position of judging what types of gender performances counted as authentic. So non-binary and gender non-conforming trans folks were often deemed ineligible for HRT or any form of gender affirming surgeries. In the case of trans women, because of prevailing norms of femininity, trans women had to perform 150% femme in order to get access to services. Otherwise, they would be deemed not woman enough, and would be denied access. In many cases, doctors could refuse medical access to queer trans folks for not conforming to the prevalent sexual norms. In order to get needed medical assistance as a trans person, you had to be straight.

These medical and legislative strategies were aimed at curing trans folks of their “ailment”, and if that wasn’t possible, to make sure the only people able to transition would be those who could pretend to be cishet and fade into relative invisibility. These practices were policed by a system of surveillance called the “real-life test” where a trans person would have to prove that they lived full-time in the gender they aligned with.

The historical legacy of cissexist and transphobic medical science are echoed in the vernacular understandings of trans science put forward by anti-queer activists today. To these folks, it doesn’t matter whether or not there is a general scientific consensus that being trans is a natural and normal human experience. All it takes is a problematic and morally dubious publication in an academic journal in order for these controversial discussions to be revitalized in the public eye.

Efforts to bring forward a critique of Littman’s research are obfuscated by accusations of censorship, anti-science mentalities, and the public harassment of trans writers, activists, and scholars. Legitimate academic criticism becomes immediately suspicious due to its connection to the notorious “trans activist agenda”.

Littman’s research, which she positioned in opposition to gender affirmative therapy, taps into the long history of biased, cissexist research that has served to disadvantage queer folks in our society. Her conclusions showcase a renewed effort to re-pathologize trans identity, and even if these assertions are rejected by WPATH, they provide the foundation for intensified transphobia, prejudice, and discrimination in the public discourse.

Gender affirmation and trusting the experiences of trans folks

When faced by biased and unobjective research, there is a need for grassroots mobilizing to highlight already existing platforms for medical and therapeutic intervention. The Sherbourne Health Centre in Toronto is a medical grassroots and community initiative that provides LGBTQ+ specific treatment to marginalized populations.

Their scientifically supported Guidelines and Protocols for Hormone Therapy and Primary Health Care for Trans Clients document has become a cornerstone in Canadian transgender healthcare. The document reads, “The trans population has suffered a great deal of prejudice, misunderstanding and harm from the medical community, and systemic oppression experienced by trans clients has often resulted in the denial of service”. This sort of scientific reflexivity is a sight for sore eyes in the realm of trans health care. Recognizing the historical and current abuses by medical professionals, the guidelines suggest a move towards the informed consent model which advocates that the threshold for prescribing hormone replacement therapy is given to the client after an information session of the positive and negative impacts of transition related medical procedures.

As pointed out by Florence Ashley and Alexandre Baril, the use of gender affirmative therapy attempts to affirm and encourage parents to take their children’s issues with gender identity and expression seriously. It is not, as many transphobic critics fearmonger, forcing children to undergo invasive medical procedures to undergo gender transition.

Ashley and Baril write,

Instead of encouraging the child not to be transgender and risking pushing them back into the closet, therapists seek to support the child and their parents throughout the process of exploring gender. They remain neutral with regards to whether the child should be trans or not.

Being transgender is confusing, but the confusion involved in transitioning has nothing to do with being mentally ill, it has everything to do with the misinformation, lack of education, and wider societal anti-trans prejudices. The lack of information about gender identity and expression in primary and secondary education curriculum means that children aren’t getting the proper education to help them navigate gender dysphoria.

Littman and her crowd view queer education and gender affirmative therapy as ideological nonsense pushed by the “trans agenda”. She renders knowledge about queerness as a catalyst for “social contagion” which threatens to contaminate cisgender children. Their solution to this issue is to literally silence and police gender non-conformity in children. This is enormously problematic.

Scientific objectivity is a fraught process that is mired with the messiness of research and the biases and prejudices of researchers. This is why WPATH asserts that “ROGD” can hardly be considered clinical, as it is one study with relatively little scientific scrutiny. The construction of facts in the medical world is a very slow process that unfolds through a multitude of studies that contest each others knowledge production in order to sift out lazy methods and potential biases.

In the face of these scientific hostilities, we need to listen to the experiences of trans folks. No one knows our struggles better than ourselves. This is why there is an emerging emphasis on gender affirmative therapy and the informed consent model. Instead of working from a position of suspicion and practices of surveillance and scrutiny, we need to give folks some well needed agency to explore their gender identity and expression.

We also need to listen to the experiences of trans writers, activists, and scholars who are working in the interest of safekeeping our access to basic human rights and dignity. We still live in a world that is hostile to queerness and difference and social conservatives consistently bemoan having to accept trans folks as human. Trans critics are painted as anti-free speech and anti-scientific, even while we raise legitimate scientific concerns with bias research that is being used against our communities.

So please, stop putting forward your romanticized assertions about what counts as objective research — you’re muddying good scientific practice and making life increasingly difficult for trans folks.

The DIY Gender Police: doxxing through visibility and ubiquitous presence

This is the second post of a small series on DIY gender police, or anti-trans activists who take it upon themselves to police and harass trans writers, advocates, and scholars in order to reverse our access to human rights, public space, and pride and dignity.

Read part one here: The DIY Gender Police: the surveillance of trans folks by anti-trans activists.

CW: transmisogyny, harassment, suicide

After coming out of the closet as a trans woman, my ability to engage in public discussions as a writer radically shifted. My new identity substantially intensified the stakes of publishing critical ideas as I was forced to come up against anti-trans hate groups on the left and the right.

I mustered up the courage to transition a few weeks before the Lindsay Shepherd controversy at Wilfrid Laurier University which would rapidly become a rallying cry for the far-right, who manipulated arguments in support of free speech to dog whistle white supremacy and (trans)misogyny across the Canadian mediascape. I wrote an article for Vice Canada called For Trans Folks, Free Speech Can Be Silencing to address how open debates about trans and non-binary pronouns often dehumanize and silence trans students in undergraduate classes. I mean, imagine being made to debate your own existence in a classroom setting!

This was the first time I had an encounter with the trolly hate group known as Kiwi Farms. I remember getting a Google notification not long after I published my Vice article informing me that my name had been mentioned on the Internet. I was blissfully unaware of doxxing groups before checking my gmail account that day and I was appalled by their cruelty. I had been doxxed, and I felt violated and vulnerable in the visibility and exposure afforded to me by the Internet.

Along with bemoaning that social justice warriors (SJWs) who wanted nuanced discussions about free speech were somehow ushering in a dark era of Orwellian or Huxley style totalitarianism, Kiwi Farm trolls also attacked me based on my appearance and my gender.

One post read, “If accommodating the 0.1% or so of people who are trannies involves destroying free speech for everyone else, fuck trannies”.

Another followed up, “I thought he just kind of an ugly girl, not a troon”.

This was my first time getting doxxed. As I mentioned in the previous article in this series, doxxing involves active lateral surveillance and intelligence techniques used by a person or group to scour the Internet for any publicly available information that is collected into rough dossiers and posted to cyberspace to engage in punitive “name and shame” tactics. Doxxing is the primary strategy in the  DIY policing toolkit, and it’s widely used within the Kiwi Farms community.

In fact, I will likely get doxxed again for mentioning my experiences with Kiwi Farms as they thrive on negative press. It took me a while to decide whether or not I should tell this story as it will give these trolls more ammunition to shoot back at me. But these assholes need to be challenged, and silence, I feel, is no longer an option.

Another user wrote, “They do it to escape their insecurity or their mistakes from their male self. Unfortunately, the Internet never forgets, nor does their body, which is male”.

They’re right, the Internet never forgets. Trolls and bigots are able to exploit the visibility and ubiquitous presence provided to us by our reliance on social media platforms and near constant connection to the Internet. Kiwi Farms is a prime example of DIY policing in that it has allowed for home brewed vigilantes to play both spy and police officer by weaponizing our visibility to threaten us into silence. It’s also worth noting that they also take joy in attacking people with disabilities and plus size women.

Visibility and ubiquitous presence

Though folks engage in social media to varying degrees, it is safe to say that most of us spend a great deal of time producing and consuming user-generated content. Many of us use social media like Facebook and Twitter to build online social identities and we curate those accounts to give off impressions of who we are. Social media platforms have become synonymous with communication in the contemporary Western world, and this has massive consequences.

Sociologist danah boyd offers us a useful concept to think about our engagement with social media platforms. She draws attention to how social media become “mediated publics” where folks communicate through technologies that shape (or mediate) our interconnections with each other. In line with physical public spaces, mediated publics allow for people to interact with each other, but these interactions are augmented by features unique to cyberspace.

Navigating mediated publics are characterized by persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences. In other words, interactions in mediated publics endure through time, are easily searchable, can be copied outside of its original context, and are seen by an unknowable number of strangers.

For instance, Kiwi Farms homed in on embarrassing thoughts that I posted to Reddit during a time where I was confused and questioning my gender. Though I won’t go into the nitty gritty details, I posted these thoughts several years ago without foresight that they would be found and used to embarrass me years later. The details that I posted on a trans subreddit were eventually archived, copied by trolls, removed from their original context, and used in a doxx meant to embarrass me in a public full of hostile strangers.

Because social media platforms have become a constant staple in how we communicate, our presence in mediated publics become ubiquitous. We are exposed to publics that might seem harmless, but can quickly dissolve in a cacophony of vitriolic bullshit.

As we navigate mediate publics, overtime we produce substantial social exhaust. This is a form of seemingly innocent enduring data that can be brought together in countless ways and to varying effects. Surveillance scholar Daniel Trottier, notes, “No single act seems risky or malicious, but when taken together overtime, maintaining an online presence can have damaging consequences”. It is this social exhaust, the fragments of a person’s digital identity, that become the weapons of DIY gender police.

Doxxing as political violence

As I mentioned in the first article in this series, activists, scholars, and journalists often focus on the dangers of state-level hierarchical surveillance while neglecting the impact of lateral surveillance practices used in everyday life by everyday people. This is often done in a way that obscures or obfuscates attention to the violences involved in lateral surveillance practices. For a lot of folks, the damaging impacts of DIY gender policing are opaque, and thus, rarely discussed outside of the marginalized groups who face the blunt of such tactics.

Earlier this summer a trans game developer named Chole Segal ended her life after substantial harassment from trolls and doxxers over Kiwi Farms. Though Segal’s tormentors weren’t the sole cause of her dying by suicide, they played a terrible role, and this marks some of the more extreme consequences of doxxing in the trans community.

Gay Star News reported, “Kiwi Farms linked to her death. On the thread there was no regret, only misgendering and mocking”.

Doxxing in inherently violent in that it violates the assumed privacy of a person by collecting disparate forms of social exhaust given off by a lifetime using social media in order to cause a person personal damage.

While speaking about surveillance, Fuchs and Trottier observe, “Surveillance gathers data about humans in order to exert actual or potential direct, structural, or cultural violence against individuals or groups. The violence involved in surveillance either operates as acutal violence or as the threat of violence in order to discipline human behavior”. Doxxing isn’t a mundane or inconsequential act, it is an intentional act of violence that is meant to do harm to people.

The communities that engage in DIY policing are accountable to no one but themselves, which sets them apart from state agencies who are at least marginally tied to a legal system. There are few ways that a person can seek justice after being victimized by anonymous and pseudonymous vigilantes who enact extreme forms of discriminatory violence.

It is important that we begin to address these issues in ways that will provide us with tools and strategies to resist DIY gender policing, ubiquitous presence, and (trans)misogynistic violence. Furthermore, we need to strategize ways of building tighter communities of support over cyberspace, as well as queer, feminist security practices that we can utilize to protect ourselves from forms of weaponized visibility. In the next addition to this series, I will explore how far-right groups use media manipulation and forms of digilantism to actively work towards the marginalization of people of color, LGBTQ folks, and women.

In the coming weeks, I will be exploring some key concepts and ideas around how trolling, doxxing, e-bile, and vigilantism over digital platforms have been seriously impacting trans communities in extraordinarily violent ways. DIY policing, and its vast arsenal of techniques, seems largely opaque in cishet (cisgender, heterosexual) society, and because of this, is mostly ignored as a form of active discrimination. We need to make this form of political mobilization visible and start having a serious conversation on how we might collectively address it.


boyd, d. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? Knowledge Tree 13.

Fuchs, C., and D. Trottier. (2015). Towards a theoretical model of social media surveillance in contemporary society. Communications 40(1): 113-135.

Trottier, D. (2017). Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility. Philosophy and Technology 30, 55-72.

The DIY Gender Police: the surveillance of trans folks by anti-trans activists

This is the first post of a small series on DIY gender police, or anti-trans activists who take it upon themselves to police and harass trans activists, writers, and scholars in order to reverse our access to human rights, public space, and pride and dignity.

Read part two here: The DIY Gender Police: doxxing through visibility and ubiquitous presence.

Part one: DIY Gender Policing

To be transgender is to be exposed to constant surveillance. Much of the scholarly work exploring the surveillance of trans folks has been fixated on hierarchical forms of watching conducted by state, carceral, and medical institutions. These institutions spy into the everyday lives of folks at various stages of their transition. This form of institutional watching is often rolled out by various experts who act as gate keepers to accessing basic forms of medical treatment and funded aid. Many of these experts are cisgender, heterosexual doctors, psychologists and state bureaucrats who claim knowledge of transgender issues without having ever experienced it.

As Julia Serano illustrates in her book Whipping Girl,  these forms of expert intervention gives way to a system premised on ensuring an “authentic” transition (i.e. informed by cisgender expectations) that lead trans folks to overcompensate their gender performance (like, 120% femme) to convince the expert that they are indeed transgender just to get access to medical care, such as hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

Trans folks are exposed to a profound amount of suspicion ranging anywhere from police and prison guards to friends and family. This suspicion could be as banal as an extra layer of scrutiny when you present your ID card to a liqueur store employee or as extraordinary as rousing suspicion at the border when crossing through airport security. There is an overwhelming sense that a trans person must constantly prove their transness while they are exposed to invasive watching, and if this is not done properly, they can be denied access to important social and medical resources.

A recent example, as reported by journalist Katelyn Burns, is the spike in US government officials revoking passports from trans folks and offloading sometimes extra-legal bureaucratic weight on identity changes.

Though it is important to have conversations about these forms of institutional surveillance, oftentimes these conversations happen in ways that obscure other forms of surveillance which have a great deal of impact on trans folks. Oftentimes, the most impactful forms of surveillance that we face is the surveillance that comes from our friends, family, and peers, and even worse, from Internet trolls, trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), and far-right bigots.

Lateral surveillance

This is what the sociologist Andrejevic calls lateral surveillance: “not the top-down monitoring of employees by employers, citizens by the state, but rather the peer-to-peer surveillance of spouses, friends, and relatives.” The use of lateral surveillance in everyday life relies on the hyper-visibility of a networked social media culture where we are all willingly tethered to various social media platforms where we share intimate details of our private lives. These digital publics allow us to post user-generated content for other users to browse through and has led to the normalization of watching each other.

Though I would argue that being constantly watched by friends, family, and peers does have a disciplining effect on people (i.e., you are more likely to act according to societal norms if you’re aware that you’re being watched), that is not what I am interested in here. I am interested in how lateral surveillance can be taken up by trolls and TERFs as a form of political violence that deeply impacts the trans community.

This is often done through doxxing which is commonly defined as the collection of private, identifiable information and its subsequent publication online. It is usually used in harassment campaigns where the person being doxxed receives a slurry of death threats, harassment, and abuse. For a lot of folks, doxxing is limited to actual names, home addresses, and phone numbers. However, I think it’s necessary to expand its definition to include the collection of publicly available information about and by a victim throughout the Internet.

Doxxing as a political violence

As a trans person involved in the public sphere through activism and writing, I’ve been doxxed several times for expressing important issues in the trans community. What caught me off-guard was the fact that all three times I was doxxed, a profound amount of information about my browsing and Internet history was scooped up into amateur  dossiers that were subsequently posted to forum boards. Literally, a person (or a group) spent an enormous amount of time and energy scrutinizing my life in order to cause me embarrassment, shame, and to ultimately silence my dissent. This has become a common practice across the political spectrum.

I’ve been working on a concept called do-it-yourself (DIY) policing, a form of digital vigilantism, practiced in left and right digital communities, that harness and weaponize the ubiquitous visibility afforded to us by our constant need for social media attention. The Internet, and the mobile technologies that tether us to each other, allow for the most inexperienced watchers to take on intelligence techniques to interrogate the lives of the people around them by collecting user-generated content that victims have produced over the media they used throughout their life.

It’s pretty damn awful.

In practicing DIY policing, digital vigilantes take on the punitive role of state policing in order to dole out forms of punishment and take justice into their own hands. They conduct intelligence work, google social media posts, plunder public records, build dossiers of potentially embarrassing information, and post those dossiers to their forum boards to encourage their members to harass, intimidate, assault, and dehumanize their victims.

Justice, of course, is entirely relative to the political and cultural orientation of the people orchestrating the doxx. For an instance, antifa groups often use DIY policing in order to doxx nazis and white supremacists to cause embarrassment, public shaming, and loss of work and social connections. The goal behind this form of political violence is to remove their capacity to organize against marginalized communities. This form of DIY policing can seem entirely acceptable as the groups being targeted are literally attacking marginalized folks for merely existing. It can be a form of collective self-defence in the absence of protection from state intelligence and policing agencies.

What I am especially interested in exploring in the next few blog posts I will be writing is how anti-trans groups have taken up DIY policing to embarrass, silence, and intimidate trans activists, writers, and scholars who engage in publicly facing advocacy. DIY policing, in this context, is used as a form of political violence to disrupt the so-called “transgender agenda” put forward by “social justice warriors (SJWs)”. What these vigilantes are working against are gains and protections won for trans rights via the often difficult and tumultuous work of activists engaged in protest and lobbying. They are working to actively marginalize us from public participation and lobbying to have us downgraded to second class citizens.

In more extreme circumstances, these groups want trans folks to disappear from what they consider their corporeal and digital spaces.

In the coming weeks, I will be exploring some key concepts and ideas around how trolling, doxxing, e-bile, and vigilantism over digital platforms have been seriously impacting trans communities in extraordinarily violent ways. DIY policing, and its vast arsenal of techniques, seems largely opaque in cishet (cisgender, heterosexual) society, and because of this, is mostly ignored as a form of active discrimination. We need to make this form of political mobilization visible and start having a serious conversation on how we might collectively address it.


Andrejevic, M. (2005). The Work of Watching One Another: Lateral Surveillance, Risk, and Governance. Surveillance & Society 2(4), 479-497.

Serano, Julia. Whipping Girl: A Transexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Berkeley: Seal Press.