Jul 3Liked by Megan Phelps-Roper, Matthew Boll, Andy Mills
I just finished You Can’t Say That (Part 2). I’m truly moved by the nuance and care taken by all of the participants, but I’m completely in love with Noah. Wow!
I found this episode incredibly helpful, as I was very interested to hear your take on Contrapoint’s response video. One criticism I wish you had responded to was Natalie’s point that you never mentioned any of the hate tweets from the ‘Gender Critical’ side in ‘The Witch Trials of JK Rowling’ and only cited hate tweets from the trans activist side. I would love to hear your response to that criticism.
This is a great question. I responded to a similar one on Twitter, but from a different direction — so let me share that one first so you can get a bit of a sense of where we were coming from, and then I’ll answer yours more directly!
The question was essentially: “Why did you ignore/dismiss the conservative critique of the trans movement in your series? Why did act like that wasn’t even worthy of discussion?”
And my answer was, in part: “It was important to distinguish that the conflict we were covering in the show is the one *within* the left, because that’s the place from which JKR hails and is a major part of why her [former] fans feel so betrayed. Criticism from the right is not as present in the show because their position is not Rowling’s position. Theirs is a different argument, and not one that she makes.”
Similarly, to your question: In that conflict within the left, violence and threats of violence did not characterize Rowling’s position. She does not believe in those tactics; she openly criticizes them; and the gender critical feminists whose meetings were being shut down by those behaviors were not responding in kind or attempting to similarly stop trans people from gathering or expressing their beliefs in public.
But of course, the hate trans people receive online is part of what fuels those behaviors. That’s why we spent a significant amount of time with Natalie’s perspective, with her sharing the hate and violent threats she has personally experienced as a trans person online, and why trans people feel abused and downtrodden and harassed. We did a similar thing at the end of Episode 4, where we reference the violent and harassing tweets received by trans advocates and their allies, comparing them to the ones received by Rowling, as part of our attempt to describe why trans people feel so embattled.
Trying to sum up here: There are so many things I wish we could have explored more fully in the series. So many of the complaints we got about the show were along the lines of: “Why didn’t you include more of X important thing?” There were people who wish I’d interviewed a detransitioner, or a trans person who (unlike Noah) was *not* allowed to medically transition as a minor and who now suffers because of that, or trans people who support Rowling, and on and on. I wish we’d had more time, but even with 7-ish hours of content, we had to make a lot of difficult choices — because there was a *lot* we were trying to cover. We tried very hard to represent people and their positions and their experiences as clearly and fairly as possible — but to basically everyone who says, “I wish you could’ve included more of X,” I think I’d say: Me freaking too! But we’re proud of what we made and we stand by it — even as we acknowledge that it could never be exhaustive, and that others would have made different choices.
That answers a bit more than you asked, but I hope it makes sense!
Jul 6Liked by Megan Phelps-Roper, Matthew Boll, Andy Mills
Hi Megan!
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my question - I really appreciate it! That makes a lot of sense - I understand that with a subject like this, you were really up against it in terms of covering all the ground, as well as making sure that it’s an engaging listen!
What I came to understand from listening to the Part 2 is that your efforts to humanize and understand are distinct from any kind of ‘endorsement’. I think we’re so used to journalists pushing a particular angle, that we just naturally assume that’s what everyone must be doing. Your discussion helped to clarify the difference for me.
On a personal note, I found TWT brought up a lot of ‘stuff’ for me. I’m a middle aged gay man who has been estranged from my family for over 20 years. For a long time I blamed myself and took responsibility for not ‘reacting better’ when they rejected me. I tried for many years to reach out and be as loving and tolerant as I could be. They still weren’t interested.
I bring this up because I think it’s a significant factor in why Natalie reacted so negatively to the podcast. LGBT often feel like it’s their ‘fault’ when they are rejected by individuals or society (a common trauma response). I think she read the podcast as arguing: ‘it’s the fault of trans people for not being nicer when they’re on the receiving end of rejection. They should just be nicer to the people who reject them.’ I had a similar reaction when I was listening to the original podcast. Listening to Part 2 has been quite ‘healing’ for me, because it’s helped me separate the ‘trauma’ from the truth of what you were aiming to achieve.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to say what a huge fan I am of yours. I so admire your story and your message of redemption and compassion. I’m reminded of the words of the Buddha:
‘Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only love, that is the eternal law.’
It always amazes me how quickly the discussions grow to so many different-but-related and fascinating subjects! I’ll try to be concise. =)
— “I understand that with a subject like this, you were really up against it in terms of covering all the ground, as well as making sure that it’s an engaging listen!”
I almost said this in my last answer, but the latter is an important concern! I lobbied for an expanded section of that point about the online hate that trans people receive at the end of Episode 4…but holy hell, that episode is already very dense and not easy for “the uninitiated” to follow. So we did our best there, including the “groomer” accusations, and expanded more with Natalie in Episode 6 instead. Many hard choices like that!
— “…your efforts to humanize and understand are distinct from any kind of ‘endorsement’.”
This is very important, and very much related to what I was just writing to Steven — about how, essentially, the most constructive conversations and arguments come from a clear understanding of what people actually believe and where they’re coming from (and on the flip side: those conversations are most frustrating and destructive when people are talking past one another, when they feel their positions are being straw-manned, etc.). We wanted very much to be part of the former and *not* be part of the latter!
— “For a long time I blamed myself and took responsibility for not ‘reacting better’ when they rejected me. I tried for many years to reach out and be as loving and tolerant as I could be. They still weren’t interested.”
Oh, man. It’s hard to articulate just how much this resonates with my experience with my family. I could go into so much detail (and I do a bit in my book), but I will just say: I know this kind of pain, and I’m so sorry it’s part of your story, too.
— “I think [Natalie] read the podcast as arguing: ‘it’s the fault of trans people for not being nicer when they’re on the receiving end of rejection. They should just be nicer to the people who reject them.’ I had a similar reaction when I was listening to the original podcast.”
I think we tried to preempt this a bit with the top of Episode 6, but I do understand. I discussed how, even though Westboro was on the receiving end of a lot of violence / threats / vandalism / unlawful activity — that didn’t mean that Westboro’s positions were right and the positions of the vandals, eg, were wrong (even if the violence etc. itself was). Another part of it for me is that after spending so many years blaming and finding fault and judging people at Westboro — and seeing the consequences of that — I tend not to think in those terms anymore. It seems far less important to assign blame than it is to find a constructive way through / out of a bad situation. (This is also related to my not believing in free will, but that’s a discussion for another day. ;)
These days when I talk about the importance of persuasion, I try to convey it as an *opportunity* — as opposed to an obligation. No one is obliged to be overly considerate of the feelings of a person who is actively trampling on theirs. In your case, it’s not your obligation to persuade your family to change their beliefs and accept you — and it’s not my obligation to do the same with my family. And yet…I try. I try because most of the time, I can do it without hurting myself. I try because I love them and believe they can change. I try because I know if I can persuade them to less extreme positions, I can help the people they target, too. Among other things…
And to be clear: none of that relieves my Westboro family of *their* responsibility to do better. They have opportunities, too, and I can tell them about those opportunities…but I can only control / take advantage of mine, so those are the ones I focus on. (I hope I haven’t digressed too far here and that this is making sense!).
— ‘Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only love, that is the eternal law.’
I love this.❤️ And I really can’t tell you how much I appreciate your kind words, and your willingness to listen and discuss, and to allow me to move on and grow after being part of a group like Westboro — a true expression of grace. I never take it for granted.🙏🏼✨
Thanks so much for your response - I so appreciate it. As I don’t want to fill the entire feed with our conversation, I thought I’d respond to you directly via the Substack messenger - I hope that’s okay!
I understand that you disagree with the “within the left” labeling, but that framing does not come from Helen Lewis. If you listen to many, many of Rowling’s former fans, a major contributor to their pain, anger, and frustration is an acute sense of *betrayal*. For decades she had very publicly taken/defended leftist positons, and because of her staunch advocacy she was seen as a moral leader (which we covered in episode 3). Rowling was very much seen as of the left, and it wasn’t simply a matter of self-identification on her part — and more to the point, not a framing that we independently imposed.
Beyond the label, though: Rowling’s position is at odds with moral arguments from the right that say LGBT identities are illegitimate, decadent, bad for society, sinful, etc. — which Rowling explicitly disagrees with. You may think that there’s no meaningful distinction between their positions, and you may lump all their arguments together — but this is a common distinction that many people make. Take this Gallup poll published last month, for instance, which shows a divergence between policy positions and moral ones. https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say-changing-gender-morally-wrong.aspx
And zooming out one more time: you seem to be saying that our choice to articulate this distinction must be because we believe Rowling is right — but the choice is a very practical one. It’s because it is difficult to persuasively argue against someone’s position if you don’t understand where exactly they’re coming from. The strongest and most compelling arguments are derived from a precise understanding of what the opposing views actually are. As a parallel: I obviously disagree with my family at Westboro, and I have been personally harmed by them and their ideas in grievous ways — but I still strive to make sure I represent their arguments fairly and in a way that they recognize, even as I argue against them.
Last for now: Our extensive reporting showed that violence and threats of violence were a common tactic used by some trans rights advocates to shut down public conversation, debates, and meetings hosted by gender critical activists — but the inverse was not true. You say that’s incorrect, but if there are examples you can give of public meetings of trans rights advocates being shut down by gender critical activists, we would very much appreciate your sharing them, and we could address.🙏🏼
Hi Steven, I promise we aren't trying to deflect when we say we believe in the power of open-minded, good-faith debates. It's really something we believe in, on this and in all our work. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the issues we're reporting on here or even what we've published that's led you to your view. Maybe it's something we should keep in mind in our future reporting to be more aware of. Thanks for listening.
I'm curious Steven if you so strongly believe "They won't answer" (which "they" did) why post here? Why subscribe in the first place? If you're so convinced they are not going to listen, why even participate and give money? I'm trying to understand your rationale.
What specific universal trans rights are these podcasters aren't willing to grant? What is in their capabilities to grant? What are trans rights in this context?
Why do you think you have to be the white savior when Natalie is quite capable of speaking for hours and generating much income while being often condescending and dismissive?
I also think you as a man perhaps don't understand the plight of women, nor do you want to perhaps? Maybe I'm wrong but the word cis is quite grating and if you want to receive respect on behalf of trans people as a true ally perhaps you should grant it and many, the majority of the population, tell you they don't want to use that terminology. Would you respect that?
These specific podcasters are probably one of the few that approach this topic with such extreme generosity and good faith that I scratch my head trying to understand how you arrive at your conclusion. The same for some reason isn't expected of Natalie. Natalie can be as ridiculing and gaslighting as Natalie wants without extending an ounce of generosity to Megan. How's Natalie oppressed by JKR?
It's all way too convoluted, dishonest, and unfair. Women who are abused and face discrimination daily in all parts of the world don't get this level of attention. Their needs and rights are suppressed in the name of men. Women face extreme oppression in the majority of the world and yet we focus on these extremely isolated privileged cases where you and Natalie create this hyperbole. I am genuinely wondering what rights you expected Megan and Andy to grant?
No one said trans people shouldn't exist. Your strawmanning and your arguments make no sense. The podcasters have to grant rights, no they don't, they have to admit bias. You extend them no good faith. It's so convoluted and based purely on your emotional righteousness. Honestly, it comes off as very Westboro church, bigoted, narrow minded and rigid.
I won't be replying to you anymore as you're not here to hear the other side. You're here to berate and judge and lecture.
Lol
Don't tell people how to behave or what to think or say Steven. And for good measure grow up.
That's not rights. These are what they want. And podcasters can't grant that. That's delusional to engage with a podcast with such demands. No one owes anyone anything but we all live in a society where we engage with each other and YOUR rights don't involve eliminating MY rights.
Your inability to understand the majority of population who doesn't want to be called cis is exactly what it is. You're siding with men who want to be perceived as women and will never be. They are trans people period. Your inability to respect that is precisely why it's impossible to have a conversation. Telling a person to grow up is not a sign of maturity of a dialogue. I told you what the issue is and you proceeded to be disrespected. It's on you. There is no need for a term to describe the majority. There is already a term. A woman.
I totally understand why you might think that (I used to think the same thing). But I don’t agree, particularly not after listening to episode Part 2. The more I listen to Megan and Andy, I genuinely think they’re coming from an open-hearted and curious place. I also think I’ll get a response - let’s see!
Probably the nastiest things said to my trans friends online come from the gender critical movement. The older mostly British women writing on instagram. I agree that trans activists are a problem online, but it’s my biggest disappointment in this series to see the GC movement get off without even a slap on the wrist. Great series but this gaping hole makes me question motives unfortunately. The ugliness isn’t only coming from trans activists and conservatives, but id never know that based on this series.
I just finished You Can’t Say That (Part 2). I’m truly moved by the nuance and care taken by all of the participants, but I’m completely in love with Noah. Wow!
Thank you for listening Deb! Noah remains one of our favorite interviews from the series as well.
I found this episode incredibly helpful, as I was very interested to hear your take on Contrapoint’s response video. One criticism I wish you had responded to was Natalie’s point that you never mentioned any of the hate tweets from the ‘Gender Critical’ side in ‘The Witch Trials of JK Rowling’ and only cited hate tweets from the trans activist side. I would love to hear your response to that criticism.
Hi Peter!
This is a great question. I responded to a similar one on Twitter, but from a different direction — so let me share that one first so you can get a bit of a sense of where we were coming from, and then I’ll answer yours more directly!
The question was essentially: “Why did you ignore/dismiss the conservative critique of the trans movement in your series? Why did act like that wasn’t even worthy of discussion?”
And my answer was, in part: “It was important to distinguish that the conflict we were covering in the show is the one *within* the left, because that’s the place from which JKR hails and is a major part of why her [former] fans feel so betrayed. Criticism from the right is not as present in the show because their position is not Rowling’s position. Theirs is a different argument, and not one that she makes.”
Similarly, to your question: In that conflict within the left, violence and threats of violence did not characterize Rowling’s position. She does not believe in those tactics; she openly criticizes them; and the gender critical feminists whose meetings were being shut down by those behaviors were not responding in kind or attempting to similarly stop trans people from gathering or expressing their beliefs in public.
But of course, the hate trans people receive online is part of what fuels those behaviors. That’s why we spent a significant amount of time with Natalie’s perspective, with her sharing the hate and violent threats she has personally experienced as a trans person online, and why trans people feel abused and downtrodden and harassed. We did a similar thing at the end of Episode 4, where we reference the violent and harassing tweets received by trans advocates and their allies, comparing them to the ones received by Rowling, as part of our attempt to describe why trans people feel so embattled.
Trying to sum up here: There are so many things I wish we could have explored more fully in the series. So many of the complaints we got about the show were along the lines of: “Why didn’t you include more of X important thing?” There were people who wish I’d interviewed a detransitioner, or a trans person who (unlike Noah) was *not* allowed to medically transition as a minor and who now suffers because of that, or trans people who support Rowling, and on and on. I wish we’d had more time, but even with 7-ish hours of content, we had to make a lot of difficult choices — because there was a *lot* we were trying to cover. We tried very hard to represent people and their positions and their experiences as clearly and fairly as possible — but to basically everyone who says, “I wish you could’ve included more of X,” I think I’d say: Me freaking too! But we’re proud of what we made and we stand by it — even as we acknowledge that it could never be exhaustive, and that others would have made different choices.
That answers a bit more than you asked, but I hope it makes sense!
Hi Megan!
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my question - I really appreciate it! That makes a lot of sense - I understand that with a subject like this, you were really up against it in terms of covering all the ground, as well as making sure that it’s an engaging listen!
What I came to understand from listening to the Part 2 is that your efforts to humanize and understand are distinct from any kind of ‘endorsement’. I think we’re so used to journalists pushing a particular angle, that we just naturally assume that’s what everyone must be doing. Your discussion helped to clarify the difference for me.
On a personal note, I found TWT brought up a lot of ‘stuff’ for me. I’m a middle aged gay man who has been estranged from my family for over 20 years. For a long time I blamed myself and took responsibility for not ‘reacting better’ when they rejected me. I tried for many years to reach out and be as loving and tolerant as I could be. They still weren’t interested.
I bring this up because I think it’s a significant factor in why Natalie reacted so negatively to the podcast. LGBT often feel like it’s their ‘fault’ when they are rejected by individuals or society (a common trauma response). I think she read the podcast as arguing: ‘it’s the fault of trans people for not being nicer when they’re on the receiving end of rejection. They should just be nicer to the people who reject them.’ I had a similar reaction when I was listening to the original podcast. Listening to Part 2 has been quite ‘healing’ for me, because it’s helped me separate the ‘trauma’ from the truth of what you were aiming to achieve.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to say what a huge fan I am of yours. I so admire your story and your message of redemption and compassion. I’m reminded of the words of the Buddha:
‘Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only love, that is the eternal law.’
Thank you 🙏🏻
Hi again, Peter,
It always amazes me how quickly the discussions grow to so many different-but-related and fascinating subjects! I’ll try to be concise. =)
— “I understand that with a subject like this, you were really up against it in terms of covering all the ground, as well as making sure that it’s an engaging listen!”
I almost said this in my last answer, but the latter is an important concern! I lobbied for an expanded section of that point about the online hate that trans people receive at the end of Episode 4…but holy hell, that episode is already very dense and not easy for “the uninitiated” to follow. So we did our best there, including the “groomer” accusations, and expanded more with Natalie in Episode 6 instead. Many hard choices like that!
— “…your efforts to humanize and understand are distinct from any kind of ‘endorsement’.”
This is very important, and very much related to what I was just writing to Steven — about how, essentially, the most constructive conversations and arguments come from a clear understanding of what people actually believe and where they’re coming from (and on the flip side: those conversations are most frustrating and destructive when people are talking past one another, when they feel their positions are being straw-manned, etc.). We wanted very much to be part of the former and *not* be part of the latter!
— “For a long time I blamed myself and took responsibility for not ‘reacting better’ when they rejected me. I tried for many years to reach out and be as loving and tolerant as I could be. They still weren’t interested.”
Oh, man. It’s hard to articulate just how much this resonates with my experience with my family. I could go into so much detail (and I do a bit in my book), but I will just say: I know this kind of pain, and I’m so sorry it’s part of your story, too.
— “I think [Natalie] read the podcast as arguing: ‘it’s the fault of trans people for not being nicer when they’re on the receiving end of rejection. They should just be nicer to the people who reject them.’ I had a similar reaction when I was listening to the original podcast.”
I think we tried to preempt this a bit with the top of Episode 6, but I do understand. I discussed how, even though Westboro was on the receiving end of a lot of violence / threats / vandalism / unlawful activity — that didn’t mean that Westboro’s positions were right and the positions of the vandals, eg, were wrong (even if the violence etc. itself was). Another part of it for me is that after spending so many years blaming and finding fault and judging people at Westboro — and seeing the consequences of that — I tend not to think in those terms anymore. It seems far less important to assign blame than it is to find a constructive way through / out of a bad situation. (This is also related to my not believing in free will, but that’s a discussion for another day. ;)
These days when I talk about the importance of persuasion, I try to convey it as an *opportunity* — as opposed to an obligation. No one is obliged to be overly considerate of the feelings of a person who is actively trampling on theirs. In your case, it’s not your obligation to persuade your family to change their beliefs and accept you — and it’s not my obligation to do the same with my family. And yet…I try. I try because most of the time, I can do it without hurting myself. I try because I love them and believe they can change. I try because I know if I can persuade them to less extreme positions, I can help the people they target, too. Among other things…
And to be clear: none of that relieves my Westboro family of *their* responsibility to do better. They have opportunities, too, and I can tell them about those opportunities…but I can only control / take advantage of mine, so those are the ones I focus on. (I hope I haven’t digressed too far here and that this is making sense!).
— ‘Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only love, that is the eternal law.’
I love this.❤️ And I really can’t tell you how much I appreciate your kind words, and your willingness to listen and discuss, and to allow me to move on and grow after being part of a group like Westboro — a true expression of grace. I never take it for granted.🙏🏼✨
Hi Megan,
Thanks so much for your response - I so appreciate it. As I don’t want to fill the entire feed with our conversation, I thought I’d respond to you directly via the Substack messenger - I hope that’s okay!
Peter
Hi Steven,
I understand that you disagree with the “within the left” labeling, but that framing does not come from Helen Lewis. If you listen to many, many of Rowling’s former fans, a major contributor to their pain, anger, and frustration is an acute sense of *betrayal*. For decades she had very publicly taken/defended leftist positons, and because of her staunch advocacy she was seen as a moral leader (which we covered in episode 3). Rowling was very much seen as of the left, and it wasn’t simply a matter of self-identification on her part — and more to the point, not a framing that we independently imposed.
Beyond the label, though: Rowling’s position is at odds with moral arguments from the right that say LGBT identities are illegitimate, decadent, bad for society, sinful, etc. — which Rowling explicitly disagrees with. You may think that there’s no meaningful distinction between their positions, and you may lump all their arguments together — but this is a common distinction that many people make. Take this Gallup poll published last month, for instance, which shows a divergence between policy positions and moral ones. https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say-changing-gender-morally-wrong.aspx
And zooming out one more time: you seem to be saying that our choice to articulate this distinction must be because we believe Rowling is right — but the choice is a very practical one. It’s because it is difficult to persuasively argue against someone’s position if you don’t understand where exactly they’re coming from. The strongest and most compelling arguments are derived from a precise understanding of what the opposing views actually are. As a parallel: I obviously disagree with my family at Westboro, and I have been personally harmed by them and their ideas in grievous ways — but I still strive to make sure I represent their arguments fairly and in a way that they recognize, even as I argue against them.
Last for now: Our extensive reporting showed that violence and threats of violence were a common tactic used by some trans rights advocates to shut down public conversation, debates, and meetings hosted by gender critical activists — but the inverse was not true. You say that’s incorrect, but if there are examples you can give of public meetings of trans rights advocates being shut down by gender critical activists, we would very much appreciate your sharing them, and we could address.🙏🏼
Take care,
Megan
Hi Steven, I promise we aren't trying to deflect when we say we believe in the power of open-minded, good-faith debates. It's really something we believe in, on this and in all our work. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the issues we're reporting on here or even what we've published that's led you to your view. Maybe it's something we should keep in mind in our future reporting to be more aware of. Thanks for listening.
I'm curious Steven if you so strongly believe "They won't answer" (which "they" did) why post here? Why subscribe in the first place? If you're so convinced they are not going to listen, why even participate and give money? I'm trying to understand your rationale.
Thanks for replying.
What specific universal trans rights are these podcasters aren't willing to grant? What is in their capabilities to grant? What are trans rights in this context?
Why do you think you have to be the white savior when Natalie is quite capable of speaking for hours and generating much income while being often condescending and dismissive?
I also think you as a man perhaps don't understand the plight of women, nor do you want to perhaps? Maybe I'm wrong but the word cis is quite grating and if you want to receive respect on behalf of trans people as a true ally perhaps you should grant it and many, the majority of the population, tell you they don't want to use that terminology. Would you respect that?
These specific podcasters are probably one of the few that approach this topic with such extreme generosity and good faith that I scratch my head trying to understand how you arrive at your conclusion. The same for some reason isn't expected of Natalie. Natalie can be as ridiculing and gaslighting as Natalie wants without extending an ounce of generosity to Megan. How's Natalie oppressed by JKR?
It's all way too convoluted, dishonest, and unfair. Women who are abused and face discrimination daily in all parts of the world don't get this level of attention. Their needs and rights are suppressed in the name of men. Women face extreme oppression in the majority of the world and yet we focus on these extremely isolated privileged cases where you and Natalie create this hyperbole. I am genuinely wondering what rights you expected Megan and Andy to grant?
No one said trans people shouldn't exist. Your strawmanning and your arguments make no sense. The podcasters have to grant rights, no they don't, they have to admit bias. You extend them no good faith. It's so convoluted and based purely on your emotional righteousness. Honestly, it comes off as very Westboro church, bigoted, narrow minded and rigid.
I won't be replying to you anymore as you're not here to hear the other side. You're here to berate and judge and lecture.
Lol
Don't tell people how to behave or what to think or say Steven. And for good measure grow up.
Muted.
That's not rights. These are what they want. And podcasters can't grant that. That's delusional to engage with a podcast with such demands. No one owes anyone anything but we all live in a society where we engage with each other and YOUR rights don't involve eliminating MY rights.
Your inability to understand the majority of population who doesn't want to be called cis is exactly what it is. You're siding with men who want to be perceived as women and will never be. They are trans people period. Your inability to respect that is precisely why it's impossible to have a conversation. Telling a person to grow up is not a sign of maturity of a dialogue. I told you what the issue is and you proceeded to be disrespected. It's on you. There is no need for a term to describe the majority. There is already a term. A woman.
I totally understand why you might think that (I used to think the same thing). But I don’t agree, particularly not after listening to episode Part 2. The more I listen to Megan and Andy, I genuinely think they’re coming from an open-hearted and curious place. I also think I’ll get a response - let’s see!
Probably the nastiest things said to my trans friends online come from the gender critical movement. The older mostly British women writing on instagram. I agree that trans activists are a problem online, but it’s my biggest disappointment in this series to see the GC movement get off without even a slap on the wrist. Great series but this gaping hole makes me question motives unfortunately. The ugliness isn’t only coming from trans activists and conservatives, but id never know that based on this series.