Thanos, Steve Rogers, and Bothsidesism

The rage of the oppressed

Quick note: I’ve been quiet here for a while - August was a hard month personally, for a variety of reasons, and I just wasn’t sure what to say. Hoping to get back into writing, with articles planned in my continued series on how I know I’m trans, as well as a new series on gender affirming care and why it’s important to keep it legal. Thanks for being patient.

Second note: This website is now also hosted as “https://www.celestefinally.com”. All the old links will still work.

Why so angry?

In an iconic moment in Avengers: Infinity War, the villain Thanos is tearing the Avengers apart. He’s tossing them aside, making them look like nothing more than annoying stuffed animals. Then he encounters Steve Rogers, AKA Captain America. Thanos (2-3x as tall as Rogers) tries to basically pound Rogers into the ground, but to Thanos’ surprise, Rogers catches Thanos’ fist in both his hands. Rogers then exerts all of his super-soldier strength to try to push back on Thanos’ fist, until Thanos finally just punches him away with his other fist.

But I want to focus on the two expressions:

See the clip here.

Cap is raging with an intensity we’ve never seen from him before. Thanos just looks… puzzled? Like he’s just honestly confused as to both how and why Rogers is doing this. And Thanos is victorious, because at this point he’s just that much more powerful than our suddenly powerless hero.

The dynamic

Captain America is powerless to stop Thanos. He can’t do anything about it. But he tries anyways. Cap is usually quite calm, rarely incited to this kind of emotion. In this case, he’s failing and he knows it. Thanos, on the other hand, in this moment, is afforded the luxury of serenity. He never takes seriously the idea that he might lose. He even toys with some of the Avengers as he defeats them.

As a result, Captain America rages, while Thanos just calmly overpowers him.

That’s often the case with someone powerful fighting someone lesser. A sports team getting blown out is sometimes likely to just start a fight with their opponent. And my experience is that in interpersonal disagreements, the person who is starting to feel like they are losing may lash out at the other.

Relevant to this blog, this is true in the fight for trans rights as well.

Bothsidesism and Tone Policing

“Bothsidesism” is the term used to talk about when someone has a staunch commitment to labeling “two sides” of an argument as both wrong. “Both sides are unwilling to compromise.” “Both sides resort to name calling.” “Both sides think they’re right.” “There’s good people on both sides.”

It’s typically true. But let’s imagine a football team wins 70-3. After the game, someone asks, “Who won?” And a friend responds, “Ah, there were valid points on both sides.” The statement is accurate, but so imprecise as to be functionally useless, other than to maintain uncertainty as to who the winner was¹.

At best, it’s just someone trying to avoid a debate in a moment they don’t feel up for it. But at worst, it’s a cover for cowardice or even prejudice. If a man the size of an NFL lineman decides he’s going to beat up a guy in a wheelchair, and at some point the guy in a wheelchair manages to roll over the other guy’s foot, very few would accept “both sides were wrong for fighting.” Legally speaking, we recognize self-defense as a valid reason to use violence².

My observation is that people typically say “there’s fault on both sides” when they simply don’t want to take a side. And you can tell this, because frequently a “both sides just need to compromise” person doesn’t actually propose a compromise. Which is to say, they’re not actually advocating for a particular compromise, they’re just saying those advocating for different sides are both wrong. They’re staying on the sidelines, not standing up for some middle ground. My friend Billie Hoard recently wrote an outstanding piece on how “the middle” is actually a position, same as any other position, and that we need to avoid granting it some presumption of correctness³.

For example, on trans rights, someone might say, “Trans rights activists and anti-trans voices just need to compromise.” On what, you might ask? They leave that unsaid, most of the time. Certain things simply don’t have compromise positions available. For example, either gender affirming care is legal for someone or it’s not. Either it’s legal for a trans person to have their gender changed on their birth certificate or not. Either it’s legal for a trans person to use the bathroom⁴ that matches their gender identity or it’s not.

Both sides, but one is angry

Frequently, one side appears visibly angry, while the other appears much calmer. Trans rights are calmly opposed by the likes of Tucker Carlson, JK Rowling, and Matt Walsh. None of them so much as raise their voice.

Meanwhile, trans folks will sometimes respond with a whole rainbow of colorful language and phrases that I won’t write here. Not all trans folks, but some. And others will certainly respond with harsh language. This summer, I accused CNN of “journalistic malpractice” after they ran a story on Bud Light. The segment was calm, and certainly involved nothing as obviously harsh as what I said. But they misgendered Dylan Mulvaney twice while failing to even note what her role was and how Bud Light threw her under the bus.

Why so angry?

Because we’re like poor Steve Rogers. Trans people are, by most estimates, roughly 0.6% of the population. As I’ve said before - if *all* of us vote one way, we still need ~49.7% of everyone else to vote with us. Our rights will not come because we demand them. They will come because cisgender people demand them on our behalf. That’s mostly true of any minority. As Natalie Wynn of ContraPoints said in her recent video about JK Rowling, “The whole reason to have rights is to protect you from the kind of people who think you shouldn’t have them.”

Meanwhile, the anti-trans voices don’t have to get upset. For one thing, the discussion barely affects them. It’s at least close to purely intellectual, especially given that only 11% of Americans have a close personal relationship with someone who is transgender.

But also, people are already listening to the anti-trans voices. They have an audience and they have power. On the other hand, a podcast I generally enjoy listening to (except for its treatment of LGBTQIA+ issues, and particularly trans issues) talks about trans people in many episodes, but has yet to talk to an actual trans person. Sometimes it feels like we have to scream just to get anyone to pay attention. Or at least that screaming is the easiest way to do it.

Is it bad optics? Sure.

Is it natural? Definitely.

What to watch for

It’s not always true that the powerful are wrong, or that the angry are right. On January 6th, 2021, a group who had simply lost an election was so badly misled into believing they were wronged that they attempted a coup and people died.

Their cause did not make their anger righteous.

Here’s what I try to look for:

1. Who is most impacted by this debate?

2. Do they have any real power? How does that power compare to the other side?

3. Am I actually taking a side? Can I envision a compromise that would actually get both sides something close to what they want? Or is it truly a zero-sum game in which there will be a winner or a loser?

And if I determine that the side that looks angry is heavily impacted and has limited real power, I try to take it easy on judging them for how they express their opinions. The founders of this country fought a bloody revolution over tax laws, and we celebrate it every July 4th. One assumes King George took issue with how the founders expressed their opinions.

Fundamentally, telling a marginalized group to “be more polite” is what’s called “tone policing”, and it’s a classic tool of oppressors (like King George) or abusers (like my former pastors). And today’s anti-trans voices use it expertly, seizing on the worst reactions of trans people in order to make us look like uncivil lunatics or a danger to society.

Even just pointing out what someone actually said can sometimes be enough for people to accuse you of being uncivil. Pointing it out is rocking the boat, and they want their boat to remain stable, and they definitely don’t want the people drowning around them to make them uncomfortable.

A better way: Compassion

I wrote about empathy earlier this year, and it’s key to all of this. When we see angry people, we need to first ask: why are they angry? How would they answer that question? You’ll note that in the previous section I described the January 6th rioters as “misled”. That’s because I truly believe that most of them truly believed (wrongly) that Trump had won the election. If you truly believe that an American election has been stolen, you’d probably be pretty angry. I can have empathy for what they were feeling, while still condemning their actions and absolutely wanting to hold those responsible to account for lying to them.

So the next time you see a trans person (or any other marginalized group) who seems angry, try to consider what it is that they fear, why they feel they have no other option, and if there’s anything you can do to help them. Don’t just stop at “they shouldn’t have used those methods.” Sure, that’s a discussion that can be had, but if it precludes addressing the actual issue, then it’s unlikely to help long term. As Martin Luther King Jr said:

Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?

This is not an endorsement of rioting, but rather a call to listen carefully to the reasons that lead to it, and particularly to those who manage to make their point without violence.

If they’re angry at you

And this all matters even more if their anger is directed at you. Maybe you said something ignorant. Maybe you said something insensitive. Start by trying to learn what it was that made them feel angry, and working on fixing it. Over time, if you feel their anger was misdirected, you can work on that. But don’t just start with “how dare you be angry at me.”

“I’m always angry”

One last Avengers reference. In the first Avengers movie, at one point Bruce Banner (AKA the Hulk) says, “That’s my secret - I’m always angry,” right before transforming into the Hulk. It honestly doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I feel it deeply on many days. When you see a marginalized person speak eloquently and politely, please know: they are likely biting their tongue. They are likely holding back. They’re quite possibly raging under the surface. I can’t tell you how many times I want to just TYPE LIKE F$^&!^@ THIS about the state of things. This year alone:

• More than twenty states passed laws banning gender affirming care for minors

• Florida has dramatically restricted it for adults.

• At least twenty states tried to pass laws that would simply define me as a man no matter what.

• I’ve known of multiple trans people who died by suicide and several who were murdered.

• I’m regularly misgendered by employees of retailers, and have been illegally discriminated against.

• I could show you pages upon pages of trolling I’ve gotten on Twitter - many of which were so flagrant that the user was banned from Twitter for it.

• I regularly hear “moderates” repeat misinformation about transgender people or the policies that affect us, and then I experience those same moderates being unwilling to correct it when they learn they were wrong.

• An ally was murdered in August just for flying a Pride flag outside her business.

Trans journalist Erin Reed recently published the new anti-trans risk map for adults, and let’s just say it looks bleak. Imagine knowing there are whole states that you should simply avoid for the foreseeable future, and that the list is growing.

None of those events affect anti-trans voices in any particular way. That’s why they can be so calm. But all of them affect me and my friends deeply.

So yes. I’m always angry. Many of us are. And tired. And scared.

When we manage to speak politely, please acknowledge it and honor it. Let us know that we were heard and how it helped you (this always makes my day). And then help if you can. Tell someone else what you learned. Share a blog post or YouTube video you saw that was helpful. Just let us know you see how hard it is and that you feel badly for us. Ask how you can support us.

And when we “Hulk out”, please be patient with us, and focus on helping us feel safe. Learn from whatever it was that got to us. Ask if anything happened recently to make us more upset. Check on our mental health. Remind us it’s ok to take a break, but don’t bench us. Give us a hug. Step in and fight for us to give us a minute. I can’t begin to say how much these things matter to us. Don’t tell us to stop fighting - we know we can’t. But support us. We need it.

Otherwise, it feels like the only move we have left is to just scream at those trying to harm us, while knowing, just like Cap, that we may lose anyways.

-Celeste

1. Abigail Thorn (pre-transition) discusses this dynamic in her fantastic video about transphobia. She says the point of the strong skepticism towards trans people of “how do you know you’re trans” is used to avoid ever having to move on to discussions on protecting the rights transgender people need.

2. I recognize that, at times, it’s been used in ways that are inappropriate. Claiming to be the threatened one when you’re actually the one doing the threatening is similar to the manipulative tactic known as DARVO.

3. I do find that “the middle” can frequently be a pragmatic option for setting policy. For example, when negotiating gun rights, the left will never accept a policy that allows private citizens to own nuclear warheads, but the right will never accept a policy that outlaws all guns including paintball guns. Some middle ground is what’s *possible* in our society, but that does not mean that it is morally the best option. But we go too far when we assume that the compromise position that people can agree on is somehow the morally best option. Presumably both those left and right of that position still maintain that their preferred policy is better, and will continue advocating for it even after the compromise is passed. You can see this pretty clearly with the advancing restrictions on cigarettes over the years. When I was a kid, they were practically unregulated except for a minimum age of 18. “Smoking or non” was a question asked of *families* who came into a restaurant. Now, the age is 21, smoking is completely outlawed indoors in my state with few exceptions, and cigarette taxes have made smoking prohibitively expensive for many. And there are still people who believe now, as they did then, that smoking should be illegal entirely. But at each step, they’ve accepted a ruling that reduces the harm.

4. See my previous post for more on this topic.