How to Hear a Dog Whistle.

A friend asked me a few days ago for a list of transphobic dog whistles, and I started to write an alphabetised list. It got long very fast, and very, very unpleasant. And also, not very useful. Transphobia doesn’t use a static list of terms. The goal of a dog whistle is to say something that people won’t understand is bad unless they’re clued into the discussion. The purpose of this list is not to list all the possible dog whistles, but to give you the skills to notice them in trans issues and hopefully beyond that too.

1. Who is the discussion centering on?

If you’re talking about trans women in domestic violence clinics, you’d better be discussing trans victims of domestic abuse. If you’re discussing medical gatekeeping, the focus should be on getting trans people access to medicine not primarily on making sure cis people are protected from getting it by accident. If you’re talking about trans issues then you should be talking about trans people. Better yet, you should be talking with trans people. If you’re discussing trans issues and trans people don’t turn up in large numbers, why not?

Another example is language. Sometimes cis people are offended by terms like “cis” because they see it as a term being forced on them — without considering the utility of having a term for 99% of the population for a community that is currently likely less than 1% of the population. If someone works on the basis that the language of discussing trans identities is primarily about how it makes cis people feel, they are missing the point.

2. Why are we discussing this?

Are we treating crimes by trans people with the same shock and urgency as we’d treat crimes by cis people? For last year after a series of violent crimes by a trans prisoner a separate prison unit was set up for trans women following major media outrage. The same crime was committed far more regularly by guards, and this didn’t make the news or lead to any policy changes. What was the real reason for discussing crimes committed by trans people but not the crimes committed by cis people?

Another related issue is non sequiturs. If someone rapidly changes the subject when you’re discussing trans issues to get you to agree to something innocuous this can be a strategy. For example, the Labour manifesto team were pressured into including a bland and non-controversial seeming statement on “protecting provisions for single sex spaces” after a discussion on trans people’s right to self-identify. To cis people who aren’t aware of the debate, these two issues may have seemed completely separate. Another example of this is freedom of speech — which is an issue that can be weaponised to defend abusive behaviour.

3. Who aren’t we discussing?

If a discussion centres on trans men/trans women/non-binary people, why? If only trans people with a gender recognition certificate are being discussed, why are 99% of the trans community being excluded? Divide and rule is a strong strategy and we recently saw it play out with the tampons issue — a media narrative was established that trans women were demanding gender neutrality in the language of menstruation and childbirth and the voices of trans men and afab (assigned female at birth) non-binary people were ignored. Even though the issue was primarily about them.

4. Are trans people being treated as the gender they say they are?

As a general rule, discussion of trans men should be done on the basis that they are men. If they are having issues with period poverty, this is a man’s issue. Language should not separate trans people from their gender — for example there is no reason to talk about “trans women and women” in the same way that you wouldn’t talk about “women and Jewish women”.

5. Are trans people being treated as a bad thing?

These are statements that only make sense if you begin with the assumption that being trans is bad. e.g. The belief that women’s spaces are at risk because trans women might use them and therefore limit women’s access to spaces without trans people in them, trans medical care is too available and it is making children trans, unsupportive parents are losing their relationships with their children when they come and that’s the trans person’s fault somehow.

Another very common way this is done is the concept that trans women cannot be attractive. So transphobes who use progressive language talk about how lesbians are attracted primarily to XX chromosomes, or “vaginal mucous” (yes, really) and that trans women must therefore be ugly. This might be abstracted to “I’m not attracted to trans women” as though they’ve seen them all and decided this. Within toxic masculinity trans women may be called “traps” and trans beauty treated as a deception to draw men in.

6. Are costs being considered that wouldn’t be for non-trans people?

If a cost makes catering to trans people impractical, then the same cost should also apply to cis people. e.g. one Green Party TERF complained that trans women’s HRT could poison fish in the same way that birth control pills do, and argued that because of this trans women should not get HRT — but cis women should obviously get HRT at menopause and birth control pills because their need for them is genuine.

Another example is name changes — if it is possible to accept that someone will change their name to get married it should be able to accept a name change due to changing genders.

7. Are trans people being generalised about and demonised?

If a trans person does something wrong, is this being discussed as a specific problem for them or as a problem for every trans person? If someone mentions crimes committed by trans people often is there a valid reason why they are more concerned by these issues than issues from other protected minorities?

Trans people may be blamed for problems without factual basis to an extent that cis people would not be. For example “trans women leave the toilet in a mess, I know this because the toilet is a mess and also there is a trans woman.”

The opposition to trans people can also try to generalise itself. For instance men who are attracted to trans women are often ignored, belittled, and keep their relationships secret because “real men” wouldn’t do that. Transphobes who use more progressive language will often discuss their campaigns as not them representing themselves but as speaking for “all women”.

8. Are trans people being separated from the general population?

A common transphobic strategy is to suggest trans people need a “third space” or that they should be singled out without their consent. Why is this being done? Does it benefit them? Have they asked for it? Is it necessary? What happens to trans people who don’t want a third space? Bathrooms are a common example of this, binary trans people may feel uncertain about using gendered bathrooms due to a fear of harassment or embarrassment but this doesn’t mean all the focus should be on gender neutral third spaces if the actual problem is the harassment and lack of safety.

9. Is violence being excused or even advocated for?

A common transphobic strategy is to mock sadness over suicide and murder or call it performative virtue signalling. At other times they may attempt to ignore the way trans identities come into these situations, e.g. “do we know they were attacked because they were trans? Lots of people get beat up.” They may also blame the victim e.g “if you’d been honest about being trans he wouldn’t have felt threatened when he found out he’d been attracted to a man.”

10. Who is being given agency?

Transphobes who use feminist language love to argue that they’re “helping” their “sisters” trans men. If these trans men aren’t the ones doing the talking, asking for the help being offered, why is that? Are they incapable or just being treated like that? In a discussion on trans issues that is not transphobic, trans people will be leading the agenda.

11. Are other identities and prejudices being exploited?

Trans people who are in another minority group are often treated as less reliable because of that. E.g. “we’re told trans people can make informed decisions about their identity but the reality is many are autistic” or discussions about whether trans men are being forced to transition because they are attracted to women — so because the transphobes thinks of them as homosexual they assume they aren’t able to make decisions about their body and identity.

At other times other minorities are invoked to justify bigotry e.g. “don’t come out, your grandma won’t understand she’s too old”, “This is a very middle class issue and will alienate working class people”, “having trans women around isn’t fair on Muslims” or “I’m just defending lesbians”. This has a double impact — creating a narrative that muslims/lesbians/etc are bigoted and dangerous for trans people while also creating the narrative that trans people are dangerous to those minorities. This is divide and rule, turning minorities against each other when they could be supporting each other.

12. Is the language being used inclusive and does it mirror what’s used by trans people?

The original purpose of this was just to list the different transphobic terms that can be used. This isn’t possible. There are too many. There’s really two issues here. Inclusive, and in line with trans people’s own language.

It is helpful to use language that mirrors what trans people use about themselves. Trans people generally call trans women trans women, and talk about being transgender. If someone always talks about transwomen and transsexuals, do they not know the preferred nomenclature, or are they not using it to make some kind of political point? And if they don’t know, how do they react to being corrected?

Of course the language is not universal even within the trans community. Older trans people may use transsexual because they fought for that identity and feel proud of it, for instance. It’s not necessarily wrong to have a different terminology, but it can be a warning sign — trans people can also be transphobic.

The trick is that good language for cis people to use mirrors but is not the same as language used by trans people. Some trans people might call themselves trannies, but there are no circumstances where a cis person should use this word. And no you don’t get to refer to HRT as titty-skittles.

Inclusive language covers a lot. Non-inclusive languages can be intentional use of the wrong pronouns or slurs, but also making sure that the words used don’t exclude trans people or see them as other than the gender they are — see the whole list, really. However, another big problem is the narrative of masculinity and femininity. Use of sexist stereotypes might be an issue for trans people — for example a trans woman might take issue with the notion that childbirth is *the* essential feminine experience. Many trans men might feel uncomfortable with toxic masculinity ideas around men as unemotional and physically strong.

Language that ties success to masculinity is also an issue. A lot of the worst insults for men are ones that imply they’re feminine (sissy, girly, pansy, pussy, etc) or that they have failed to meet the standards of masculinity (faggot, low t, beta male, cuck, etc). If a man is born with a vagina he might not feel welcomed by that. For women or non-binary people assigned male at birth this can create a perspective in society that they are failed males. For all women more generally, the notion that manhood is a superior gender state that some people fail to achieve and therefore end up as women is more than a little offensive.

This can’t be a comprehensive list of the ways we tackle transphobia, we haven’t even really commented on how humour or threats or disinterest or other emotional responses to trans people impact this, or trans people in the media. And it’s just my one limited perspective of things I’ve come across as one white binary trans woman. Other people might have a different perspective. But I hope this provides a useful framework for outsiders to think about this in a bit more of a systematic way. I also think the model might apply for other groups.