Why We Must Abandon The Young Turks: Transphobia and Progressive Influencers
Never attach yourself to idols
Laura Halls
Published in Prism & Pen
4 min read
Apr 22
I’ve written a couple of articles lately going over problems with Ana Kasparian and her recent delving into transphobia. In both articles, I explained why I thought transphobia would be something we would likely continue to see, and that outbursts of transphobia from Ana and The Young Turks (TYT) commentary program she co-hosts and produces would likely grow worse over time.
While it has not been long since I made those points, Ana and her co-host Cenk Uygur have continued to double down on transphobia. Keep in mind that all of this stems from Ana being wrong about how inclusive language is being used, a point she herself has criticized people for being wrong about in the past.
People have continued to explain this to Ana and Cenk, yet they are both refusing to listen to those correcting them. In fact, they both seem to be repeating the same old lie about women being called birthing persons instead of women. This is a lie on their part. Nobody is mandating that anyone call women birthing people, simply saying that language such as that is used in certain settings to be inclusive of non-binary or trans people.
More than enough people have responded to them in good faith, correcting them and explaining why they’re wrong. At this point, they cannot simply not be misunderstanding, so we can be sure that this is just them being dishonest.
[…]
They’re throwing trans people under the bus in the middle of a massive moral panic from the right.
More at link:
https://medium.com/prismnpen/why-we-must-abandon-the-young-turks-transphobia-and-progressive-influencers-3960be0ef69a
Also there is this:
https://m.
= new reply since forum marked as read
always hate the RF.. and now this
TY!
I quoted from the article that you posted and asked a simple question that had NO association with any 'buzz words' 
But never mind that ... it sounds like you're saying that your position is that it's basically horribly offensive to your sensibilities if someone generally referred to a 'mother' ... is in any way analogous to being 'a woman', is that correct?
That was the buzz words I meant.
I never said that. The article never said anything like that. You are going out of your way to frame those of us who advocate for the use of inclusive as though we are the ones complaining or offended when it was Ms. Kasparian who took umbrage and offense where none was given nor intended. You can see that here:
There are many ways to be a woman. Anyone who identifies with womanhood enough to seriously apply the label to themselves is a woman. Cis and trans women are women.
Saying a person who gives birth includes many cis-women. The issue is using trying to use inclusive language in such a way that we don’t create bad generalizations that exclude people who want to be and should be included, or include people who do not.
Again as I said before trans-men can be mothers. Some women can’t be mothers. Saying “those who have given birth” does not erase women but acknowledges this fact. I It prevents the false implication that trans men who gave birth are women and it prevents the equally as false assumption that those women who can’t give birth are not real women.
Those of us using these terms are trying to be inclusive and fight these type of trans-antagonistic views. It is not degrading nor is it meant to be.
Ana was being a transphobic snowflake. At the time she first said this I assumed it was meant to antagonize the Biden Administration but given her bullshit comment on trans activists and now the podcast where she attacks puberty blockers and defended Jesse Singal she has proven herself a true TERF.
Ana was at least arguably being a snowflake in that initial comment, I mostly agree there. I mean I suppose there's SOME argument to be made that a woman might prefer to be referred to as a woman, as opposed to being defined by her reproductive/baby-making capabilities, but since nobody was actually doing that to her specifically ... it's a bit of an invalid appropriation, and comes off poorly as such.
But at the same time, Cassandra's counter-argument is also VERY easily shown to be a logically fallacious response to that comment 
I didn't know about 'the podcast', don't know who Jesse Singal is, nor what s/he said. If Ana 'attacks' puberty blockers, then of course I do not concur in any way.
But I have to circle back round to this point ... "Again as I said before trans-men can be mothers."
Can they, though? Is that what trans-men want to be called, is 'mother'? Because, like it or not, 'mother' implies 'female'. Why is he not a 'father'? Do you not see the dichotomy of this situation?
Do you see at all how convoluted the 'proper' nomenclature becomes, and why people, even liberals like myself who stick up for trans rights at every opportunity ... will begin to ask 'what do you expect from us?'
Mother implies a woman to the VAST majority of humankind. You cannot expect that to change because you assert, for the first time in history, that a man can also be a mother.
So, I just have to ask ... is it really worth it to insist thusly?
There are many trans women who identify as dads. Mae Dean, a trans woman and comic strip creator, said this:
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
That said, Vercetti says she looks forward to being a “mom.” It varies and when in doubt…just ask the person!
And pushing back on THAT is the point. Again, trans men give birth. Many of them (probably most of them) do not identify as mothers. But they still are pregnant and give birth. Using inclusive language like “those who have given birth” achieves that. It in no way diminishes the cis women who give birth. It includes them as well as anyone else who may need to deliver a child.
Proper language tends to be more convoluted. A waiter telling guests “Ladies and Gentlemen, if you will all follow me I shal escort you to your dining table” is way more convoluted than “Howdy y’all, follow me to your seats!”* People will use both in real life depending on the situation.
It’s not the first time in history. There have been trans parents as long as there has been trans people (and we’ve existed since pre-history). And yes, society can change. It has before and it will again. Our language was very sexist at one time and feminist activists changed that. Flight attendant despite being more convoluted replaced Stewardess. Here are other examples:
https://ualr.edu/writingcenter/avoid-sexist-language/
So long as we have and use these exclusionary terms there will be an almost subliminal bias against trans people. But just like how our culture changed because of feminist insisting on non-sexist language we can change it by using these terms.
*Sorry for the slang but I’m from Texas! That is how we talk…sometimes
It in no way diminishes the cis women who give birth"
You can say that, and I being cis-male can easily say 'Yup, I agree'.
But at the same time ... what if some cis-women don't?
What if their true feeling is that they don't like being referred to as a 'birthing person' or 'person with a uterus'? What if they are hurt or offended and don't like being defined by their reproductive abilities, and/or simply prefer terms like woman and mother?
I might logically surmise that some women will feel slighted, like trans folks are taking something special away from them, even though they are otherwise supportive. I imagine a scenario where an expecting person might visit a bookstore maternity/child-rearing section and find that every book there has a name like 'A Guide For Pregnant Persons', and every reference in that entire book uses terms like that, and 'birthing person', etc. There's going to be a lot of women hostile to a change of that sort.
I say things like this out of caring, I want y'all to succeed and get all the rights and acceptance that are due to you, it's just there's occasionally things that you're asking for right now that I just sense are going to make it more difficult for you, that I think might go over better a little later down the line. Asking the world, essentially, to stop saying 'mother' and use 'birthing person' from now on in all generalized cases (i.e. we don't know which term a person prefers) ... it's a big ask and risks a backlash is all I'm saying.
When I look back on how far gay rights have come in my lifetime, I get a strong sense that the support in general of cis straight women, played a big role in that process. Acceptance of gay rights always polled higher in their group than it ever did with cis straight males, and I'm sure still that's still the case. It's a factor that's at least worth considering IMHO
And I hope it works out for you 
But do have to address this one point.
"If we don’t push then things don’t change for the better and “a little later down the line” never comes"
I was alive for most of the gay rights movement, and have supported it all along. Let me just share with you my recollection of how roughly this went down:
1) Decriminalize Homosexuality, and stop raiding our fucking bars, just leave us alone.
2) Let us have our public Pride Parades.
3) Stop discriminating against us when it comes to housing and loans and such.
4) Stop demonizing us with your religious bullshit, blaming us for AIDS, and instead start investing government funds and try to help us, Anita and Ronnie!
5) Stop calling gay teachers fucking groomers, we're not, and we have a right to teach children as our profession.
6) Quit using bullshit religion-based reasons to prevent us from being able to adopt children.
7) Allow gay people to serve in the military.
8) Put us in the Federal Code as a Protected Class for employment purposes.
9) Allow openly-gay characters to be represented on TV and in Movies (without them being Rated X).
10) Allow openly-gay talk show hosts.
11) You need to BAN this conversion therapy bullshit.
12) Grant the full benefits of Marriage to gay couples, protected under a SCOTUS ruling at minimum.
Do you understand how long all that took? Stonewall 1969 - Obergefell 2015 ... 46 years.
When I look back on that I have to disagree with your premise that 'later never comes'. It absolutely CAN, and that absolutely happened with Civil Rights, too.
Be strategic, that's all I'm saying.
At the same time I think ... what if the demand at step 1 was the demand at step 12? I mean step 12 was barely if at all uttered at the don't ask don't tell stage, roughly 25 years later after Stonewall.
Imagine if the Civil War was not just about freeing the slaves, but also letting black men marry white women?
There's a bit of risk to demanding large-scale social change too quickly. I wish it were not so, and I don't mean to say it's right ... but I think it is reality.
Not telling you what to do, and I don't know all, and I'm beside you and wish you the best. Thanks for the civil chat 
