More Nuanced Than Thou

Moral or moral superiority?

The Pharisee and the Publican, James Tissot

I’ve developed quite the aversion to the word “nuance.” And it isn’t because I think nuance is unimportant. On the contrary, I think black-and-white thinking is dangerous and I try as much as I can to be aware of the subtleties of any given situation or issue. But I am tired of people using “nuance”—or at least a facade of it—to claim the moral high ground. Because if there’s one thing I can tell you it’s that most people consider their position to be nuanced and don’t consider themselves to be “extreme.”

Painting yourself as nuanced and someone who you disagree with as extreme is an easy way to position yourself as more reasonable and more worthy of being listened to. There is a trend in our little gender critical movement of people (mostly men, often trans-identified, but I don’t want to restrict this phenomenon to one or two demographics) coming along and pretending to present a ~nuanced~ view on this debate that will solve everyone’s problems… as if we haven’t been trying to do exactly that.

But this fundamentally betrays that they think their approach is the correct one, and that we would all be fine and happy if we just thought as they did. Yet, these self-styled moderates often hold positions that others would consider very extreme, like the idea that some kids are “trans” and should indeed transition, even if just socially.

Worse, they tend to accuse those who have different opinions of sowing discord and division, particularly if they hold those opinions boldly and vocally. I have seen this accusation lobbed at people who I know are eminently reasonable and willing to have difficult conversations—which makes you want to ask who the divisive party really is.

I hold many positions that I could claim are more nuanced than the positions of those who disagree with me if I wanted to. But who am I to consider my own opinions more subtle and refined than someone else’s? Why should I assume they haven’t thought about their view as deeply and carefully as I’ve thought about my own?

I think my stance on “preferred pronouns” provides a good example. In a nutshell: I believe pronouns should never be coerced and 99% of the time I am not going to use them, but I reserve the right to make the decision about using them for a friend. I’m also not going to demand that anyone speak one way or the other (though this is generally reserved to the realm of the personal. I’m sure as hell going to call out “news” publications that obscure the sex of a subject).

I could promote myself as a sensible moderate and those who draw a hard line around never using preferred pronouns as less nuanced in their position, but this would be frankly disingenuous and arrogant. This would require that I don’t believe people with a different opinion have given full thought and consideration to their beliefs and that they are just seeking to be divisive and inflammatory when that is obviously not the case. We simply have different opinions and different priorities, and that doesn’t make anyone more nuanced than another.

When it comes to pronouns, for example, I understand why some women will only ever use sex-based language and why they often will try to convince others to do so as well. I think (and I am trying to be generous here and not misrepresent their views), that many women who take this stance are concerned about women’s rights above all. And that’s good, we need people like that.

My stance, on the other hand, comes from being concerned most of all about free speech and free expression, and about not giving any side, even the side I agree with, the power to control or coerce language through any type of pressure. Do I wish more people agreed with me since I think that free speech is fundamental to securing any other rights and since I worry that any movement can derail into being authoritarian? Sure. Of course I do. But that doesn’t mean my position is more nuanced.

And like I said, I actually don’t believe that everyone needs to think exactly like me. I do tend to be more flexible and willing to compromise than many in this fight (though I would say that applies more to my personal life than my politics). And fundamentally I think that is a strength—but not always.

Compromise can become appeasement. If the person or movement you are compromising with is unscrupulous, then you'll give an inch but lose a mile. We went from agreeing to reasonable accommodations for what was presented as a very tiny minority of suffering people who just wanted to blend in and live like the rest of us to rapists in women's prisons.

In light of this, I don't blame people, mostly women, for drawing a very hard line in the sand. Many draw it further than I do, but I am often grateful for them. And their reasons for doing so are rarely thoughtless and simplistic.

How's that for nuance?

Related Reading: