[Blog/Commentary] [USA] 5 Ways Hate is Expressed

[Stephanie Stevens]

Dyssonance, USA


May 30th, 2012 by Dyssonance

5 Ways Hate is Expressed


Hate. In the US, the word has become a loaded term, flung most often
in hostility, to mark out something that is not socially acceptable to
do any longer.

The use of hate is a moral assault — we, as citizens of the US, are
not supposed to hate other citizens of the US. We save that for
people from outside of it.

One of the core tenets of the most popular and largest sects of
religious beliefs here in the US is that one should not hate: love
your neighbor as you love yourself.

And yet, hate — an intense and driving dislike of a particular person
or group of persons — is something that we recognize we are not very
good at not doing. And so we have laws and rules and policies
regarding what it is that constitutes speech which furthers, creates,
encourages, and protects those who engage in actions that are hateful,
and words which bring about those actions, both directly and
indirectly.

Recently, Shiela Jeffreys was denied permission to speak at an event
which seeks to do many different things, but which carves out a
specific set of boundaries for itself, often based on the principles
about which she speaks. The basis for this was that she engages in
hate speech.

Her reaction to this was that holocaust denial is not hate speech.
That’s not precisely what she said, mind you. But in effect, when you
reverse the structure of her sentence, that is how it comes out, as
she said that her words were not akin to holocaust denial, but to the
people she is actively engaging in hate speech about, it sure as fuck
is the equivalent.

So, for the benefit of those who may not be aware, I am going to give
you 20 different examples of the expression of hate. You do not need
to follow a particular ideology to use these, as this isn’t about the
ideologies involved, this is about the expressions — the actions and
words, not the thoughts — of hate that are commonly seen.

Trans women are not women. Trans women are not female.

The above statements are hate speech. IF one perceives hate speech as
being the things that are said to people when they are being violently
and viciously attacked, then the two statements above, in western &
English speaking cultures, are absolutely hate speech.

They are statements that are just as vile and ugly and frequently used
as faggot, as nigger, as spic, as tranny, as shemale, as he-she, and
various other and assorted horrible terms when trans people are
violently attacked.

It also goes beyond that, as well — it is also an ethnocentric
statements that posits the western, Egnlish speaking world as superior
or morally preferable to that of other languages and cultures. This
is readily shown by simply comparing such terms as Masculine &
Feminine (gender) to Male and Female (sex) across cultures. The
meaning is the same — one cannot be female without being a woman, and
one cannot be a woman without being female. This ethnocentric
consideration becomes highly problematic as well, as it implies a
racist systemology that is strongly related to ethnocentric
understandings.

Stepping outside of the rhetorical and semantic argument, the use of
either or both of those statements is commonly arranged in such a way
as to present trans individuals as “wrong” or “faulty”, and requires a
sense of inherent superiority that is, itself, antithetical to an
understanding of equality. Thinking it is one thing, putting into
practice is another things entirely.

Since this is known by most of the people who use such language
already, and they also understand that it is directly contravening
much of the research into biology and physiology that undermines this
simplistic approach to sex (intentionally simplistic, I will note),
those who rely on this basis will use the lac of understanding found
frequently in the poorly and undereducated classes to find support and
recognition under the rubric of “common sense”.

This is equivalent, in social terms, to stating that Jews are not
really following the same God, or that muslims are not following the
same God, as Christians. While there are a great many people who think
this, they generally think this because they do not have a grasp or
understanding of the nature of these religious beliefs. I will note,
as well, that this misunderstanding has driven warfare for decades,
and still, today, underlies many aspects of racism and ethnocentrism
that persist even today.

One of the things used to defend themselves when they say this, and
the accurate point of Hate Speech is raised, is that they are having
their right of free speech abridged. This is inaccurate. Hate Speech
laws have withstood constitutional challenges in the United States (I
cannot and do not speak for other nations), and stand up because the
basis of such speech is not fact, but supposition which is meant to
deny other citizens access to their civil rights.

Cis is Hate Speech

Cis is not Hate speech.

Saying that it does qualify as such. It is akin to the situation in
the mid 1940′s through 1970′s where people claimed, often loudly and
greatly, that “white” or “cracker” is hate speech. It is even more
parallel to saying that “straight” is hate speech, since the terms
serves the same purpose of recentering the discourse on recognition
that trans people are equal to and equitable with people who are not
trans.

This is most often accompanied by an assertion of a binary — that Cis
and Trans are mutually exclusive. This is a part of hate speech, in
and of itself, as firstly, the two are not mutually exclusive, and
secondly, they are not the only two possibilities. See “what is trans”
for more information. This is key, because a person can indeed be cis
and trans at the same time, and, in such a case, one could argue that
strictly speaking that makes them a separate group entirely, or
someone who is both cis and trans.

As a comparative to this, I will point out that there are people whose
racial heritage is mixed. Shocking, I know, but let’s move on. These
people are both black and white, as one possible example, and yet this
also means that they are neither black nor white awhile still being
both at the same time. And if that sounds like it is difficult for
you, keep in mind that I have lived my entire life understanding this
as a lived, practical, real world situation.

So this is not merely a theoretical possibility, it is a lived one
that is actively current.

If saying that someone is straight is hate speech, or that someone is
white is hate speech, or that someone is blond is hate speech, then it
is conceivable that cis could be hate speech, as well, but for the
group of persons who belong to the dominant class assert such, they
are trying to lay a foundation for reverse racism and reverse sexism
in order to absolve themselves of their actions — to do this requires
that they have, in some way, an understanding of their actions as
needing absolution, and that, right there, shows an ill will and
malicious intent in doing so, which is, indeed, hate speech.

Trans people need a real cure

This statement presupposes that the speaker knows more about the
ciscentric concept of transness as an illness and a wrong than other
people who have far more knowledge and education in the subject, and
is directly related to the first of the examples here.

In order to make this statement requires that you look on yourself as
better than trans people, as a class. If you do not, you cannot make
this statement, because it is a moral and social judgement that relies
on the dominant group and class being “more right” than the subjugated
group or class.

This is significantly “supported” throught he following statement and
others like it:

“Trans” people have a mental disorder which interferes with their
perception of reality.

Late last year, the worldwide organization that is referenced by as
the predominant authority on the treatment of trans people, and that
utilizes proven and substantially more rigorous methodologies and
efforts than the people who say such things, noted that it is
unethical for people to seek any other kind of cure than that in
process.

This is binding on those who fall within certain widely held
professional ethical constraints (such as lawyers not revealing client
information or doctors maintaining confidentiality). It should be
noted that not all persons practicing medicine follow these ethical
guidelines and readily decide to involve themselves with unethical
practices.

Within that same group, and in the same document, it is noted that
transness is not a mental disorder, and that, indeed, most of the
problems that trans individuals face stem from their interactions with
the dominant group, which labels them as deluded, disordered, and
similar. This is why the effective classification does not describe
transness as a disorder, but rather a dysphoria, and the use of
disorder itself is frowned on widely.

The only group which has more practical authority on the subject of
transness than this group is trans people, themselves, as a collective
group. So this assertion that they are disordered also serves as
justification for the negative treatment of trans people, which, in
turn, means that they engage in what they are aware, at some level, is
in fact maltreatment by them of trans people. If they were ot aware of
such, then they would not have to justify such, or would not have a
reason to justify such.

Thusly, it is a expression that is meant to deny trans people the
equal access to their right of bodily integrity.

Related to this are efforts to deny trans people the benefits of
medical capabilities. Things like outlawing surgeries or requiring
sterility to justify one’s existence within a given socially allowable
role is in direct contravention of this right, which women (trans and
cis and otherwise) are often notably speaking out on behalf of — in
many different ways, of which the most public and widely recognized
one is the fight over medical abortion, but also such issues as
breastfeeding and safety from sexual assault.

This is further established when this argument is widely used in
situations where a trans woman is raped, and this argument is used to
justify and create a valid argument that rape did not happen.

I will note that one could, once one is aware of that, make the
argument that persons who use this argument — including professionals
who have respect in their fields for work outside of that dealing with
transness — are effectively arguing that trans women cannot be raped,
that trans men cannot be raped, and that rape is not a concern of
trans people.

One *could*.

Trans Critical

Trans critical is a dogwhistled for a kind of hate speech that claims
something akin to the idea that since blakc people are inferior to
white people, white people are perfectly fine in taking the time to
point out how the way that black people see themselves is flawed.

It didn’t have to be that way, sadly. The reason it is a dog whistle
is that it makes one think of actual study and critique of trans
issues. However, this is not what it means — in much the same way
that Arizona’s SB1070 “wasn’t targeting Mexican-Americans”, this
allows those who use this phrase to say they aren’t ‘really’ saying
trans people are bad, just the ideas they have.

It is possible to be critical of transness and the concepts within it
(for example, I am known for being critical of many facets of trans
culture and thought, even to the point of challenging broadly held and
sometimes revered concepts). However, that isn’t what trans critical
efforts actually do.

What they are critical of is the existence of trans people.

The comparative that I have, in my personal life, is the way that
people argue over what race I am, without ever bothering to ask me.
And they do this frequently — I have yet to have a week go by in my
life when such does not happen.

That same argument has led to me having to defend myself on many
occasions, as the victim of what is a racist attack on my person, my
existence (which, strictly speaking, was illegal in many states when I
was born), and to say that arguing over my existence or my *right to
exist* is, in fact, not hate speech is pretty fucking stupid in my
book.

Many of the statements here are culled from persons who describe
themselves as trans critical. It might surprise people to learn that
these people are not merely the pretend “radical feminists” that I
have been engaging of late, but also include many, many others, all of
whom have one thing in common:

they claim they are in the majority but are often not in the majority of people.

Many times, in order to uphold the veneer of seeming civilized
behavior that comes with the dogwhistle, people will say things like ”
I believe they should have the right to work and live and and all
that”, but in the end, what they are questioning is the right to
exist, and without existence, all the rest is just window dressing.

Pretty, but what lies beyond is what’s important.

Promotion of Raymond’s Empire

As I have noted previously, there is no single person who has done
more harm to trans lives than this woman.

There is a man who has done *nearly* as much. His name is Paul McHugh.

Both of them are still alive today. Both of them are still doing
things that harm trans people.

Promotion of this book, and, in particular, promotion of it as a
positive guide and as a positive thing, are acts of hate speech, since
the book itself, can be considered a seminal work that enslaved trans
people in ways uncounted even now.

Furthermore, people will often not disavow this book.

The only value this book has is in harming trans people. It is a
screed with as much hostility in it as anything written by any
Holocaust Denier. It is more than just a conspiracy theory, it is a
book that literally caused the deaths of many trans people and hurled
others into a hell that some are only now escaping.

But, most importantly, this book laid out several dozen key arguments
about trans people. ALl of them are hate speech. And the crowning
glory of this work is that the hate speech is collected and summarized
into a suggestion that trans people should be morally mandated out of
existence.

As a book, it still informs things such as “trans critical”. As a
work, it stands as an example of just how nasty people can get when
dealing with trans folk, and is close to the pinnacle of hate speech.

Promoting it is promoting hate speech.

That’s five examples.


Resist oppression.

Do not cooperate with it.

Do not do what they want you to do. Do not stay in your homes and only
venture out when it is safe. Do not only interact from the safety of
anonymity and invisibility.

Do not avoid being seen or being involved.

That is what they want you to do.

That helps oppression.

Do not scream back at them things that involve violence or hatred.
They want that — they are the ones who are in social power and when
you do that, you give them a tool they already have to beat you with.

When you encounter hate speech, say, simply, “that is hate speech.”

They will argue, but the speech, itself, still stands, and you have
done your part, because when they start arguing with you, yo have
already won the point, and all they are trying to do is drag you down.

THere is one more form of hate speech I want to explain to you. It is
the sneakiest sort, the sort that the laws cannot do anything about.
But it is still hate speech, it is still meant to cause you harm.

When you are arguing with people, they will often avoid actually
arguing with you about what you are talking about. Instead they will
talk about how you look or how you behave or what you like or your
equivalent level of authority or your age or your ethnicity or
whatever they can in order to accomplish one simple, basic goal.

They want to make you look like a bad person.

As a trans person, that’s the default. To resist oppression, they
claim you have to not be a bad person. It isn’t true, but that’s what
they want. So don’t let them argue with you about you. If you are
bad, be bad. It isn’t your badness that is the problem. It is them.
Let them argue with you about the ideas, about the theory, about the
distant stuff, and never give them that satisfaction.


http://www.dyssonance.com/?p=11565