Among the many issues people have with transgender identities and the process of transitioning,
one especially mystifying notion is that this is somehow selfish or vain.
This is a difficult accusation to counter, because the concepts of "selfishness" and
"vanity" are slippery things.
In common usage, whether something is seen as selfish or vain is largely based on an
individual's subjective opinion, something which can widely vary.
This makes it hard to refer to any kind of objective standard of selfishness or vanity
and show them, "no, it's not."
But it often seems like they don't even really intend to demonstrate how this is selfish
or vain.
They don't actually bother to explain why it must be so, they just declare it to be
so.
Rather than making a serious argument, they may simply be using these labels to signal
disapproval.
They have some kind of problem with people being trans, and to justify this, they have
to come up with a reason for why it's bad.
So they just pick any random thing that's commonly seen as bad and which sounds vaguely
plausible.
They think being trans is wrong.
Being selfish is a thing that's wrong.
Therefore, they're going to argue for the bad-ness of being trans by saying that it's
selfish.
In this process of thinking in reverse, they overlook the need to identify which aspects
of being trans actually coincide with the distinguishing features of selfishness or
vanity.
They're just trying to pass off a hollow imitation of a reason as though it were a real basis
for their claims.
But despite how subjective people's standards may be, there is still generally some minimal
- if vague - consensus on what actually constitutes selfishness or vanity.
Selfishness is typically understood as an excessive focus on the self, at the expense
of concern for others.
Someone's gender identity and the process of transitioning are necessarily focused on
the self, but that alone is not enough to make this selfish.
Not everything that has to do primarily with the self is selfish just for that reason.
There must also be some kind of negative impact on others as a result of that emphasis on
the self.
It's common for people to lower the threshold of selfishness on a situational basis so that
they can attack almost anything for allegedly being "selfish".
For instance, someone might decide that my daily medications, which cost less than a
cup of coffee, are a selfish indulgence because I could have sent that money to developing
nations.
Of course, we probably wouldn't see them going to a Starbucks to berate the patrons for their
"selfishness".
At some point, we have to recognize that it is often acceptable for us to do certain things
for ourselves, and most people understand this when they aren't trying to use the accusation
of selfishness for dishonest purposes.
Things we choose to do for ourselves rather than others, but which are not actually selfish,
might be better described as self-centered, self-focused, or self-oriented.
But even this still carries the connotation of being selfish in a bad way, because the
choice to describe it as pertaining to the self at all is often perceived as being in
contrast to an unspoken baseline standard of appropriate balance between self-interest
and concern for others.
Any emphasis on the self thus implies that this is now out of balance, which makes it
difficult to talk about anything that has to do primarily with the self without this
being read as some kind of transgression.
But regardless of the difficulties in discussing this, it's still not clear what exactly about
being trans must be selfish.
For this to be selfish in a bad way, there would have to be some element of it which
adversely impacts others to an unacceptable extent, and which is disregarded so that the
individual can pursue their own desires.
Again, merely choosing to work toward their own goals is not enough to make this selfish.
So, does this cause any harm to others?
If so, what are these harms?
And are they genuine harms, or just harms that have been imagined and constructed?
Finally, are these harms so substantial that they should outweigh the need for trans people
to live as their true selves?
Only then can we conclude that being trans is unacceptably selfish.
So what might these supposed harms be?
When might someone have such an important obligation to others that it overrides their
own need to identify and live as they wish?
Many of these supposed "harms" seem to be of the same nature as the harm suffered by
a Catholic mother who must endure the presence of gay people holding hands at a public park
where her children can see, or the injury inflicted upon a Muslim who is exposed to
an illustration of Muhammad.
These are not actually harmful things.
Plenty of people are able to be in the presence of gay people or drawings of Muhammad without
acting like this constitutes some kind of real damage to them.
Those who pretend that this is a genuine harm seem to think that because they hold particular
beliefs, everyone else is obligated to live their lives in accordance with these beliefs,
and if they don't, their unwillingness to let someone else's beliefs deter them from
living the life they want must mean they're selfish.
But this is not a legitimate obligation that anyone else is required to accept.
The fact that you're prejudiced does not mean that anyone is actually harming you by being
part of a group that you're prejudiced against.
And the fact that you follow a certain religion does not mean anyone is harming you just by
not following that religion.
People object to these things, not because they're really causing injury to anyone, but
because they choose to be bothered by them, and they believe the rest of the world must
therefore honor that choice and tiptoe around it.
But being gay, or doing something the religion of Islam wouldn't approve of, does not deprive
these people of anything other than their desire to control the lives of others to a
clearly unacceptable degree.
And the only burden it imposes upon them is one which all of us must already learn to
live with: being part of a world full of people who won't always agree with you.
It is not selfish to be gay, or to disagree with Islam, just because some people don't
like that.
And likewise, it is not selfish to be trans merely because some people may vigorously
disagree with it or claim that we've offended their delicate sensibilities.
But considering the serious burden they seek to impose upon trans people by discouraging
them from being themselves on the grounds that this is "selfish", it truly is selfish
for them to prioritize their personal comfort and inexplicable need for everyone not to
be trans over another person's identity and self-fulfillment.
It's difficult to fathom how someone's strong feelings on the matter could be important
enough to obligate someone else to closet themselves, silence themselves, and disguise
themselves every day as a gender they don't identify with.
Our choice to live our lives as we wish does not inflict any real harm upon those who demand
we do otherwise.
But their expectation that our life decisions should never stray from their standards would
cause unacceptable harm to us.
Such expectations really are selfish in a bad way.
There are certain situations where there could be more concrete harms tied to being trans,
such as circumstances where it might have a significant impact upon someone's partner
or children and their relationships with them.
This won't be applicable to every trans person, and it isn't something I have much experience
with, because my partner and her entire family have always known me as a woman.
At this point, it would be a surprise to everyone if I came out as a man!
And again, it's possible for people to be tempted to exaggerate the harm of someone
close to them being trans in order to make it seem unacceptably selfish.
But when this does come out of nowhere, and nobody is sure of how best to work through
it, the effects can potentially be similar to any other disruptive or destabilizing event
that changes the nature of the family.
Families are supposed to be a place where love, stability, and being there for each
other are paramount, and choosing to be a part of a family represents an implicit agreement
to maintain this and further these goals.
To that extent, the feelings of one's close family can be somewhat more relevant here
than the opinions of random people.
For example, Dan Savage once claimed that it was selfish for a woman not to postpone
her transition until her son was 18, because he was greatly distressed about this.
If someone has children, how they're affected by such decisions is certainly something to
take into account, although it's hard to see how the supposed harms that were previously
compelling enough to demand that she delay her transition would suddenly cease to enter
into the moral equation as soon as her son turns 18.
If its impact on her children warrants such a delay, then isn't it possible that she might
be obligated to postpone this indefinitely?
And if not, why would it necessitate such a delay now?
If transitioning were to lead to a breakup, then the effects this would have on one's
partner and children need to be considered as well, but to argue that this is unacceptable
just because it would cause a breakup is essentially the same as arguing that divorce is always
too selfish to be permissible.
But sometimes divorces and breakups do end up being the better option once everything
is taken into account.
Similarly, each family's situation is different in ways that make it impossible to issue blanket
pronouncements of when being trans is or isn't okay, or how it should be handled.
This is something to be worked out on an individual basis.
And while it may seem easy to say that one person should be expected to make sacrifices
for the sake of the rest of their family, it's also important to consider the negative
effects of having a member of the family repress and closet themselves for a lengthy period
of time, in terms of how this impacts the health of the individual and everyone else.
This is not something that can be simply ignored out of existence.
Just imagine what kind of difficulties could arise from forcing a cis person to identify,
present, and live in the role of the opposite sex for years at a time, in order to avoid
disrupting their family.
The very idea would likely be offensive to many people.
And no matter how noble the intention might be, this could end up being quite unhealthy
for themselves and the rest of the family.
All of these factors need to be weighed against one another, and many of them can be too complex
to quantify in a straightforward way.
This decision isn't easy enough to be made by advice columnists and other amateur ethicists.
It's a deeply personal matter to be worked out by the individual and their loved ones.
And if someone does choose to make a personal sacrifice in terms of hiding who they are
for the sake of their family, that's their choice.
But it doesn't mean that anyone who chooses otherwise is necessarily selfish.
Being trans is not something that's reliably harmful to one's family.
Not everyone finds it to be so flagrantly unacceptable, and not everyone believes their
own needs are important enough to compel someone to pretend to be something they're not.
And if they do, there's still the potential for selfishness in their belief that the individual's
need to live openly is not important and can be disregarded.
In any case, people outside of these situations probably don't have enough information to
evaluate whether the impact of someone being trans is so severe that they should have kept
it secret in order to please their family.
And just as with selfishness, the concept of vanity is usually misunderstood, misused,
and mostly subjective.
Most people care about how they look to some extent, so the accusation of vanity can easily
be used to criticize anyone for caring about their appearance at all.
Given that presenting as a certain gender is closely tied to how we look, it's no surprise
that trans people are often singled out and accused of being vain for altering our appearance.
But simply caring about how we look is not enough on its own to conclude that we're vain.
Just as how selfishness describes an excessive fixation on the self, vanity describes an
excessive fixation on one's appearance - not simply caring about it at all.
At first glance, it's easy to see why people might think that changing your appearance
to that of another gender is so drastic that it can only be described as excessive.
But the magnitude of that change on its own does not mean that it must therefore be in
excess of what's reasonable.
In the case of someone who's trans, the desire to live and present as their preferred gender
is entirely reasonable.
This is only excessive if people wanting to be seen as their gender is excessive.
Do we call cis men and women vain for getting haircuts or buying clothes and makeup?
Most of the time, we see nothing wrong with this.
So how vain is it when I wear women's clothes, compared to a cis woman wearing women's clothes?
If you consider all of the trappings of gender that people spend time and money on over their
entire lifetime, it might start to seem pretty incredible no matter whether they're cis or
trans.
Yet in the case of cis people, this isn't usually treated as an excess focus on their
appearance, but an acceptable focus.
Of course, one key difference is that trans people often take certain steps to present
as their gender which most cis people will never have to.
But this is simply the nature of the condition, and the various procedures associated with
transitioning are considered by medical authorities to be necessary treatments as part of the
standards of care.
When cis people have to correct their appearance due to a medical condition, this generally
isn't seen as objectionable.
If a cis woman with PCOS seeks to remove her excess facial hair, does anyone have a problem
with that?
Do they have to rock that beard or else risk accusations of "vanity"?
So why should we consider it vain when a trans woman wants her facial hair gone?
If a cis man with gynecomastia wants to have his breast tissue removed, is he just being
vain?
So why would it be vain for a trans man to have chest surgery?
Sure, these can be major, costly procedures.
But again, that doesn't mean they're excessive or unwarranted given the circumstances.
In the case of genital surgery, some people may consider it an act of vanity to operate
on organs which are undesired but otherwise functional.
But the need for genitals that match their body image is no less legitimate in trans
people than it is in cis people.
Consider the case of male combat veterans who have suffered disfiguring injuries to
their genitals.
If it's easier to construct a vagina rather than a phallus, as it very well may be in
some cases, would it be mere vanity for these men to prefer a functional phallus - or for
them to have any preference at all?
Should they have to settle for whatever they can get regardless of their desires, or else
be considered vain?
Whether people seek genital surgery because of their gender identity or because of involuntary
disfigurement is immaterial.
Just as in the case of undesired facial hair or breast tissue, the legitimacy of their
preferences is what matters, and if these preferences are legitimate for cis people,
they should be considered legitimate for trans people as well.
Simply living as your identified gender is not normally considered an example of selfishness
or vanity.
Yet this is all too often considered an outrageous act of self-absorption when trans people do
it.
The expectation that anyone should have to abandon their gender to avoid being seen as
selfish or vain is never applied to cis people, because it's plain to see how unreasonable
this is.
I'm entitled to my gender, just as you're entitled to yours.
But I'm not entitled to anyone else's gender - and you're not entitled to mine.
One of the most important things my mother shared with me was her realization that she
didn't want to spend the rest of her life living purely for other people just to keep
them happy.
Is that selfish?
No.
They have their own lives to live, and I have mine.