I’m going to be that guy, and no, this isn’t a gotcha. I’m a trans ally. I support the existence, rights, and dignity of trans people. But I’m allergic to lazy thinking; even from my own side.
“Trans people are natural.” Cool sentiment. Terrible framing.
First off, “natural” is a word people use when they’ve run out of real arguments. It’s vague, emotionally loaded, and epistemologically useless.
Plenty of things are “natural”: cancer, infanticide, parasites, sexual coercion. Doesn’t make them desirable. Doesn’t make them moral. If you want to make a moral case for something, do it without the crutch of nature.
Second, let’s talk about optics. When you say “trans people are natural,” you’re not helping. You’re feeding into the exact framework used against queer and trans people for decades; the idea that something has to be “natural” to be valid.
Why are we reinforcing that standard? Why are we bending over backwards to find a species of fish that flips sexes and pretending that proves anything about human gender identity?
Transgender identity is not “natural” in the biological sense. There’s no mammalian precedent for someone born male socially transitioning to live as female with a nuanced internal experience of gender. That’s not how “natural” animal behavior works. But so what? Who gives a shit?
Being trans is a human phenomenon; emergent from consciousness, culture, language, and self-reflection. You know, all the “unnatural” stuff that makes humans interesting. The wheel isn’t natural. The internet isn’t natural. Civil rights aren’t natural.
Trans people don’t need to be validated by nature. They need to be validated by ethics. By compassion. By rational moral reasoning.
So let’s stop appealing to nature. It’s weak, it’s misleading, and it sets the movement back by anchoring it to bad philosophy.
I’m a trans transhumanist and agree. Though actually iirc there is evidence of animals experiencing some of this stuff even if they often lack the sociocognitotechnological structures to act upon it.
But my opinion is that “nature” (as much as that is even coherent as a concept which is questionable imo, youd really want to be going into specific systems) itself is fundamentally coercive.
I consider “nature” itself to be transphobic in structure (even if it is not sentient or has intent, once you can criticise systems for their construction why not criticise systems that are not human created such as biophysical systems nya). That is, the very construction of major parts of my biology - along also with social systems which have a major component - deprive me of autonomy and self determination. For me, as a trans enby who wants and has obtained hrt, then, I have used technological means to seize my agency ^.^. I’m not just talking abojt trans stuff here but yeah :p
Imo we must tear down this idea that “nature” is something just or good at all or any sort of model for how things should be. Thats not to aay engage in ecological destruction which is a different issue (I won’t go into that now but “don’t accept nature as it exists and be willing to radically alter or overthrow its tyranny” is not the same as “burn down all the forests/release CO2 and mindlessly destroy all the complex and interesting ecosystems that exist and that we also currently need for agriculture, just for short term profits, often even when better options exist”).
On the other hand, I do appreciate the gesture of support and solidarity for what it is. Even if philosophically I consider it incorrect.
What part of my argument do you find philosophically incorrect?
I was agreeing with you and stating that the original group doing the “natural” thing were philosophically incorrect but I still appreciate the gesture of their support :p
First off, “natural” is a word people use when they’ve run out of real arguments.
Framing trans people as natural is direct contradiction of the common rhetoric that “trans people are unnatural” thus dangerous and you know that. You’re not a trans ally. Be kind and be honest, please. This planet needs good people.
I agree with the other guy. I have a trans friend but she doesn’t pretend like it’s natural for humans. Maybe the feelings are but the actual process is not. And that’s fine. But trying to argue against a point that the oppositition uses with niche examples and rephrasing to something that is very cut and dry does not help with optics or changing hearts and minds. If anything it usually backfires.
The more important issue is that people accept her choice and get the fuck over what she has decided to do with her own time and body that does not effect anyone else in any way.
Like the first guy said. Who cares if it is natural or not? That’s not the fucking point, there’s lots of things for us in this world that aren’t natural that we love and that help us. There’s also lots of things in this world that we hate or that will harm us that is natural.
Natural doesn’t mean good or bad it’s an incredibly reductive stance to take. And it’s frankly insulting that you have decided to roll over and let the oppositition influence your opinion that trans people have to be seen as natural just because hateful people say the opposite. Should the people claiming unnatural is somehow bad and dangerous also hate people with prosthetic limbs because those are also not natural? Following that logic, should we then argue that prosthetics limbs are natural because others hate them for not being natural? See how the logic for the entire argument from the start is stupid, breaks down, and should not have even been entertained in the first place? It’s a bad faith argument, you don’t engage with those.
You’re not a trans ally. Be kind and be honest, please. This planet needs good people.
You’re a horrible person for saying this. The guy above you is supportive of trans people and yet because they don’t fit into your box of what an ally looks like exactly that means they can’t be one. That is incredibly insulting not only to them, but to the movement, and even to my friend directly. I’ve watched her be discriminated against and the hurt that goes with it, you’re supporting that hurt by rejecting a real ally.
In these times you support every ally you have even if they don’t fit into your box of what an ally is, you don’t get to decide that. As long as they don’t discriminate against trans people there is nothing wrong with their support. Your rhetoric is the exact issue that causes people to turn away from being trans allies or giving support because they feel alienated and constantly berated when trying to support the cause, usually because they’re told they’re not supporting in the right way. Shame on you especially for trying to cover your words with that fake positivity at the end, the planet has good people but you’re actively telling them they’re not good enough!
🫰
As mentioned in my post, in response to people falling for the naturalistic fallacy: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Whether it’s natural or not is simply the wrong metric by which to evaluate whether someone has a right to exist or be treated with dignity.
It’s akin to someone saying to you after you’ve dyed your hair, “that’s not natural,” and then you scramble to insist that it is.
The right response is: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Also: how do you read this and think I’m anything but an ally? I’m explicitly advocating for compassion, dignity, and equal rights for trans people. Pushing back on bad reasoning doesn’t contradict that; it strengthens it.
If your definition of “ally” means I’m required to accept weak arguments without criticism, then you don’t want allies. You want sycophants. And I’m not signing up for that.
I’m not interested in moral purity contests where allyship is contingent on uncritical agreement.
So the flag can talk, huh. Article should be about that.
Trans gorge-ous
