Eryn writes in response to the recent talk by journalist Abigail Shrier, “A Night with Abigail Shrier,” hosted by the Jefferson Council, the Common Sense Society, and the Young Americans for Freedom at the University of Virginia. Shrier is the author of "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters.”
I am no stranger to opinion.
As someone who gravitates towards op-ed writing, I am used to disagreement. I enjoy reading political essays online, especially from news outlets that allow conservative voices to publish thinkpieces. I pick apart the aspects of the argument that lack foundation, that employ illogical fallacies; I consider foreign policy and judicial appointment perspectives that I don’t agree with, but could see how someone else would. I engage with rhetoric.
But, more and more often, there is a dark utility for words that is hidden behind claims of “free speech” and “civic engagement” and “healthy democracy.” There are community members, here at UVA, who debate the very existence and equality of their peers, their classmates, their hallmates—then pardon it with the shallow, easy excuse of it being an “opinion.” As if it is a cure-all salve, one that protects them from consequence.
I’m angry. And I’m tired.
Shirer’s argument in her book seems to rest on broad assumptions about children and the transgender identity as a whole. Her evidence, misleading or not, seems to categorize a type of person—many of whom attend UVA—as deviant. Delinquent. Morally corrupt. The ethos of her argument, which seems to be that trans people are something to fear and prevent, is not so easily soothed by statistics.
As was said then, speech is not owed a platform. Platforms are a privilege.
When Mike Pence spoke at UVA, a conversation about the effects of speech on our community emerged. As an apparent advocate for anti-Queerness, his political opinions necessarily targeted the very existence of a number of queer UVA students. On a campus that is trying to be “great and good,” that applauds itself for creating equal opportunities and “safe spaces” for a myriad of identities, we allowed a speaker who is synonymous with promoting unequal access to public safety.
As was said then, speech is not owed a platform. Free speech is a right, but platforms are a privilege. But the warning fell on deaf ears, it seems. This time, a student organization not only brought a notorious anti-Queer speaker on Grounds, but one whose entire publicized talk seemed to rest on that anti-Queerness. It seems the UVA administration would rather bury their heads in the sand than try to navigate a difficult conversation around the politics of words and the effects of speech on lived experiences. One would think PhD holders would be able to adequately handle such a negotiation. I suppose, once again, our leadership would rather take a “neutral stance”—one that, through inaction and indifference, necessarily chooses a side.
But another consequence, I hope you realize, is the effect your words have on your community. To be a true civic participant, it is your responsibility to understand how words construct the world around us.
So instead, I address the students of the Jefferson Council, the Common Sense Society, and the Young Americans for Freedom directly:
Many students on Grounds will tell you that speaking your opinion doesn’t owe you agreement or embrace. That backlash is a part of “free speech,” too—simply a byproduct, or a mere consequence. But another consequence, I hope you realize, is the effect your words have on your community. To be a true civic participant, it is your responsibility to understand how words construct the world around us.
Our rewriting of history is what allowed Lost Cause ideology to prevail in the South. Our victim blaming produces a less than 2.5% conviction rate of sexual assault perpetrators. And the violence against trans people—their fear of walking to class, attending parties, and outing themselves to a stranger—is caused by the harmful rhetoric surrounding trans identity. And when you celebrate, when you invite, the kind of speech that turns trans people into moral enemies, it lands on your shoulders.
I would hope that UVA students are not advocating for violence against their peers. I do not think UVA students applaud microaggressions, being abandoned by one’s family, and being assaulted on the street. But you cannot spew diluted hatred at a group, then escape the effects of your actions. There are consequences for words—even if you don’t feel them from the UVA administration.
But when you platform that kind of rhetoric, you take on an active role in producing a world that causes physical harm.
Even if the statistics of violence against trans people don't faze you as you scroll through the news, surely you know that to dismiss speech as “just words,” just “political ideas”—that makes you an active part of the danger our trans peers face everyday.
To advocate for dissolving and destroying people is a much harder stance to take when they’re in your class discussion group, when you make small-talk jokes with them about the difficulties of midterm season, when they attend football games and student memorials with you. But when you platform that kind of rhetoric, you take on an active role in producing a world that causes physical harm. I pray this surprises you, because the alternative is much more frightening.
I cannot absolve you from that responsibility. It is your consequence.
