On TERFs, Science, and Human Rights

Lately, right-wing social media venues like fake university and conservative propaganda machine PragerU have come out in full transphobic swing, grabbing snippets here and there from celebrities and talking heads about non-gender-conforming people that conveniently align with the overall Alt-Right-reality narrative the mainstream Right seems to have generally embraced.

You are of course hearing blurbs from people who often tilt left or can be identifiable as on the liberal spectrum, whereas much of what they have otherwise expressed would put them well at odds with the Right as a whole. In many cases, these short segments, when not clearly taken out of context, are used to add to the massive straw man that conservative ideologues continue to build when it comes to transgender people (and LGBT+ people in general). From insidious dog-whistles like “cancel culture” to mockery, derision, and threatening slogans, the Right will hang on to anything that can provide nourishment to their ideal of Christianist authoritarianism.

Another of the most nefarious methods in their arsenal is their use of “selective scientism”. Although akin to regular scientism, this right-wing conservative approach to scientific evidence and sources mirrors their approach to religious argumentation and discourse. That is, it’s an apologetical approach, one that in turn seeks to benefit their religious or theological presuppositions. In short, they cherry-pick science — like they cherry-pick media like the Bible — to “support” their already-established conclusions, which always have a theological and ultimately authoritarian bent.

When pressed with other evidence from often better science (such as from improved studies, larger data sets, evidence from review or reproduction, etc.), they will tend to ignore it and push forth the exact same fully-falsified information. This extreme aversion to modifying their seemingly science-based claims exposes not just a misunderstanding (or perhaps more of a flat-out rejection) of the scientific method or its purpose, but also that their selective appeal to science is merely strategic — another tool in their propaganda belt to attract people who may otherwise be searching for scientific or quasi-scientific evidence for their currently held beliefs, regardless of their political affiliation, in an attempt to “bring them into the flock”: Divide and Conquer.

It is therefore helpful to take it with a grain of salt whenever a right-wing conservative makes appeals with any science-like information. More often than not, there will be good evidence to refute the argument, or the source of the information — under stricter scrutiny — will prove unreliable (such as suffering from small sample sizes, simple biases, etc.) or be part of older, long-debunked studies (AP News | Elderly, conservatives shared more Facebook fakery in 2016). This is especially true with human neurological and other physiological science, but also holds water for human-activity related sciences (such as climatology, sociology, psychology, and even economics), and has been used for everything from “proving” the superiority of one group of people over another (DEO | How White Nationalism Courts Internet Nerd Culture), to presenting bizarre libertarian theories of economics (Business Insider | Study’s Claim About Strength and Politics Debunked). In essence, the Right’s use of science has become primarily a way to “signal partisan identity” (Lazer, Baum, et al., 2018 | The science of fake news), and is less about actual science, facts, or truth.

And now to the science.

Despite the ideal of an objective scientific method, the science (i.e. studies) that actually takes place is subject to societal realities and pressures, including present prejudices and cultural presuppositions. For example, in the midst of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, conservative politics were a major obstacle to the funding of research that saw the entire decade of the 1980s wasted in terms of working toward an understanding of the virus and disease, as well as treatment and a vaccine, which equated to the preventable deaths of millions around the world (Vanity Fair | The Reagan Administration’s Unearthed Response to the AIDS Crisis Is Chilling). The primary driver of this bad-faith obstruction was the assumption that HIV/AIDS was a “gay plague” and “nature’s revenge on gay men” (Southern Poverty Law Center | History of the Anti-Gay Movement Since 1977), among other anti-LGBT+ rhetoric. By the time these politicians and the people they represented caught on that HIV/AIDS was not some punishment from God, their apathy and sanctimonious recalcitrance had already caused irreparable harm to society, the LGBT+ community, and public trust in human health and scientific institutions to adequately face national health emergencies (the consequences of which we may still be observing during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic).

The reality is that this exact policy stranglehold by a still-dominant Right that includes what studies are allowed to take place is a great part of the reason why the science we do have to back trans rights is not statistically sufficient. This, along with a weakened scientific process in the face of economic profitability pressures in academia (The Guardian | Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? ), makes for a bleak outlook on the development of science that can help us better understand the nature of gender dysphoria and how to best assist individuals who experience it. Unfortunately, this consequence of Right-wing obstruction is by design. And it is for these reasons, too, that “soft” sciences like psychology and sociology need a stricter “hard” component more than ever. The value of this is not so much to discredit whatever inaccurate information the Right uses to discriminate against trans and other LGBT+ persons (after all, they will keep using misinformation no matter what), but to give ammunition to evidence-based constitutional policy that extends and protects our collective human rights from those that would deny them at any cost.

Fundamental Trans Rights, like Women’s Rights, are [still] essentially Human Rights.

The goal of human rights policy is to establish a freer and more equal society and is historically inclusive and expansive. Through it, a previously excluded people is brought under the umbrella of a recognized and explicitly “human”, collective status under the law, dignified by inalienable principles of social convention and ethics afforded to them by the society of which they have always formed an integral part. Through the evolution of this policy, there is no question that feminism has had a strong historical role since the 19th century, when it crystallized into its activist form. Through much of what the feminist movement established in the critical area of gender/sex-based social norms and rights, the idea and recognition of LGBT+ rights also took a stronger foothold. At the onset of and through the AIDS crisis and its mainstream implications, and in the course of later developments in sociological theories of gender, philosophical clashes regarding perspectives of transsexuality/transgenderism within feminism became evident. It was in 2008 that the idea of “trans-exclusive radical feminism” (TERF) was popularized (by feminist blogger, Viv Smythe). Today, TERF has found a more visible platform through prevalent media in the midst of ongoing debates on transgender rights.

However, despite these ideological clashes, we must understand that the fundamental aspects of rights for transgender people are also fundamental human rights. Whether mitigating discrimination in health care, housing, employment, education, due process, etc., it is difficult to argue against affording transgender individuals — a historically greatly marginalized group — unhindered and fair access to all of these. In applying due process to the exploration of what transgender people should be justly and reasonably afforded to live (not just exist), we can only expand what should be justly and reasonably afforded to us all (whether we choose to exercise it), without regard to any categorical limitation on sex or gender. The greatest and most contentious question before us is the idea of “gender self-identification”, which, I argue, should be a basic human right within the scope of what less subjective evidence can tell us.

The Intersection of Science and Human Rights

Good science can only help us in our understanding of the human condition and has always — in the long-run — reinforced the expansion of human rights to all persons (Claude, 2002 | Science in the Service of Human Rights). Of course, this is with an emphasis on “good”. Good science is that which in earnest follows the scientific process to develop a body of less subjective evidence. But in order to achieve this adequate volume of reliable data, we must be willing to fully fund and perform wide-reaching studies into sex- and gender-related subject matter that affects us all, without the stigma, shame, or discomfort often imposed by the Right’s aversion to change or progress in the name of religion or other supposed “conservative values”.

The fact of the matter is that today, the data we need is terribly limited, oftentimes by design (at least politically), especially when it comes to understanding and including transgender persons (Zucker, 2008 | Children with gender identity disorder: Is there a best practice?). Where we have previously relied on subjective and vague wisdom, we must now more than ever promote a wisdom informed by evidence and data.

In the meantime, trans people cannot wait. Transgender people are human beings; it’s time to extend the common courtesy, protection, and due process that all people deserve; it’s time to stop stalling and obstructing the codification of their rights. Whether you feel you just don’t know enough about the issue to decide, or this produces discomfort in you, or whether you agree that “transwomen are women” is — in the end — irrelevant.

Other sources:

1. Linking science and human rights: Facts and figures (scidev.net)
2. FLASHBACK — Buchanan: AIDS Is Nature’s ‘Awful Retribution’ Against Homosexuality (Think Progress)
3. Intersections of Science, Ethics and Human Rights: The Question of Human Subjects Protection | American Association for the Advancement of Science (aaas.org)
4. The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest Over Economic Redistribution — Michael Bang Petersen, Daniel Sznycer, Aaron Sell, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, 2013 (sagepub.com)