Own Not Lest Ye Be Owned
I want to talk to you about a rhetorical phenomenon that has always existed but has become much more prominent in the digital age: that of “owning people,” especially on the internet. It goes like this: rather than making a substantive claim against someone you disagree with, you pick out something you believe is contradictory and point it out as a reason to further disagreement among others. In the end, it may be that the contradictory point may not be as rhetorically vacuous as one thinks.
It’s a rhetorical device because its main feature isn’t to point out anything wrong with what the speaker said at all, but to score points as the supposedly more logical thinker. It’s more of a PR move than anything else: nobody likes to look wrong or foolish, so the next best thing is to make your opponent look foolish.
Let me give you an example: I found an old post from Facebook the other day where a cisgender person was complaining about being called cisgender. When trans folks, including me, started pointing out how hurtful the post was, the original poster as well as others started attacking two words I used in my response as well as my supposed tone in order to discredit me. In the end, they didn’t refute a single thing I said, and continued doubling down even as I found myself apologizing for what was, admittedly, an over-the-top word choice. They didn’t refute anything I said substantively, but they went away thinking they were victorious because they dominated me in the conversation.
In the lingo, I was owned, but I was not refuted.
I was reminded of this phenomenon after Mark Gallagher’s recent response to the current Gadfly situation in Unitarian Universalism. After repeatedly calling a marginalized group of people, trans people, fanatics for the simple demand of wanting to speak for ourselves while simultaneously admitting he may have blind spots in the trans experience, Gallagher focuses on a single sentence in the TRUUsT response he seems to believe is contradictory to our membership standards:
One further point: The TRUUsT [Transgender Religious professional Unitarian Universalists Together] letter complains of “the conflation of intersex and trans experience.” This is particularly perplexing in light of the fact that at the end of the TRUUsT post is a footnote: “TRUUsT uses the word ‘trans’ expansively… while recognizing the limitations of this approach and the fact that not all non-binary people use the word ‘trans’ to describe themselves.” The footnote then includes “intersex” in a list of such people. In other words, TRUUsT decries the conflation of intersex and trans, yet in the very same communication acknowledges that when they say “trans” they include intersex. This sort of confusion is part of why a great deal more humility and gentleness is called for.
I was a part of crafting the response Gallagher cites, and very much pushed for the inclusion of this sentence. Had Gallagher asked a member of TRUUsT or an intersex person why this sentence was included, I’d actually be quite impressed with his desire to seek out information and understand, even if I didn’t agree with the response he received. There’s no evidence he did this, though, and, instead, is seeking to score rhetorical points by owning us, showing why we’re way too sensitive and should be more willing to educate and elaborate information readily available by Google search at every turn.
Had Gallagher asked, he would have found out that the history of interaction between the transgender and intersex communities is tenuous at best, antagonistic at worst. It’s not a pretty piece of our history, but it’s true. While the intentions of those who originally conceived of transgender as an umbrella term to include everyone who deviated from the cissexual, cisgender norms of identity and expression, including intersex people, over the years, gatekeepers within the community have quietly pushed out people they don’t believe are “trans enough,” including intersex people, nonbinary folks, crossdressers, drag performers, and people who don’t intend to medically transition.
In short, their reasoning is that intersex, by definition, has to do with sex and not gender. See, intersex people are born with some biological characteristics that are considered “female” and others that are considered “male” by our current system. So, while the gatekeepers are technically correct, this ignores that transgender and intersex experience can overlap. For instance, it is still quite common to surgically “correct” the genitals of intersex people at birth and assigning them a gender on the binary that may not be how the person actually identifies later in life. Some high profile cases have emerged over the years where an intersex person was surgically altered and assigned a gender that they do not feel is theirs. (Though surgery on intersex infants is now widely considered barbaric and has been condemned by multiple medical organizations, it, unfortunately, still happens in many places, one of the major social justice issues for intersex people.)
You might notice some similarities and differences between trans and intersex experiences. Both often identify as a gender they were not assigned at birth and often struggle to be seen as the genders they feel they are. However, infant intersex “corrective” surgery is an important difference, as is the sex (verses gender) nature of intersex conditions.
So, although intersex people were originally intended to be included under the transgender umbrella, many are not comfortable with this grouping, both because of the gatekeepers previously referenced and because they just feel that their experience is different enough from trans folks that they don’t feel at home in our communities.
However, there are others who readily see themselves as transgender, genderqueer, or nonbinary. There’s even a nonbinary identity for intersex people who believe their status as intersex influenced their gender: intergender. For these people who want to be in the transgender community, I hold the door open wide with expansive definition of what it means to be trans without being coercive.
Thus, TRUUsT opens its doors to people who identify as intersex.
The point here is letting intersex people for themselves how they want to identify, just as we would anyone else. What I can tell you is most intersex people hate being used as a ping pong ball or “gotcha” card in transgender debates. For instance, intersex people are often brought up by well-meaning cis people as “evidence” that transgender and nonbinary identities are valid. The reasoning is that, if nature isn’t even binary in genitals and chromosomes, then it is reasonable to assume gender isn’t binary either.
These discussions make intersex people feel invalidated and used, as they’re only worthy to be brought up when someone can score points using them. And that is the essential reason I argued for that sentence in the TRUUsT statement: to stand with my intersex siblings and tell them I don’t think it is appropriate to bring them up in a discussion about the validity of trans identities. While there are similarities, I recognize that the differences are just as important and honor that.
Plus, let’s face it, many of the people who don’t believe transgender and nonbinary identities are valid aren’t going to be swayed by the intersex argument anyway. If they don’t believe our reporting of our own experience, why would they believe intersex people are valid? I have had bigots tell me that intersex conditions are just a mutation and don’t need consideration at all, so I don’t think there’s ever a reason to bring it up, unless it’s to advocate for the rights of intersex people in their own right.
My point here is that this is a nuanced, fraught discussion, and it is not one that anyone who cares about either trans or intersex people should use to score points. Instead, in Gallagher’s response, it was used to try to own those who don’t have the “humility and gentleness” he believes is necessary in this discussion. Yet, even as he calls for humility and gentleness, Gallagher doesn’t show any evidence that he has researched the distinction between intersex and transgender at all, and he doesn’t refute a single thing said in the statement. Instead, it’s a rhetorical device to once again show how unreasonable those marginalized people are being, to, consciously or unconsciously, tone police us into quiet submission.
Whether he realizes it or not, the effect is that Gallagher‘s’ call to humility and gentleness becomes a way to dominate us in the conversation, to show he is the more reasonable person and should be listened to.
And that’s the essential crux of owning someone: rather than having the better argument, it’s a tool of supremacy culture in order to show how the dominant group’s argument is always better than the marginalized group. Because pointing out the error of conflating intersex and transgender experience makes others who don’t understand the distinction uncomfortable, they, instead, make it out that pointing out this error at all is wrong.
And, thus, intersex people are used as a gottcha once again when we should be learning about their experiences and how to be better allies to a group we don’t belong to.
This, I argue, is the very reason centering marginalized voices is not some fanatical proposition by unreasonable people. We are often the ones who understand the nuances of our experience better than anyone. And, while people complain we aren’t educating them enough, we could have already written an article helping you to understand us in the time it took you to complain about us being too sensitive.
So, I decry owning as a tool to silence marginalized voices and propose that, anytime you are about to employ such a rhetorical device, it may be time to step back and ask what you need a better understanding of in this case.
And, to my intersex siblings: I see you. You are valid. Your experiences are real and nuanced. And it is not okay that you are a pawn in this fight.
