why i hate the expression 'trans ally'

[splinterjete.livejournal.com]

in preparation for a workshop i recently gave, and spurred on by the repeated use of the word 'trans ally' by a cis woman who was using their cissexual privilege in quite a backhanded way, I started to get my hate on the whole term. something that i couldn't really put my finger on really bugged me about the term. i knew as well that it wasn't just the fact that very often allies could overstep their boundaries and take up space/re-tell our stories in ways they're not welcome to (though these things definitely happen a lot).

no, what really irks me about the 'trans ally' turn-of-phrase is that it's wrong, plain and simple. IT MAKES NO SENSE! are straight people who are allies of the queer community called 'gay allies' or 'lesbian or queer allies'? rarely! rather these people are straight allies. are not white people of various minority communities called 'white allies' and not 'x allies'. in these instances, one's priviliged identity is made visible through its explicit naming. is this not the preferable, and arguably correct, way in which allies are named? by extension, allies of trans communities are, more correctly, CIS ALLIES rather than TRANS ALLIES.

even using the term 'trans ally', quite ironically, serves to erase the privilege that the cissexual or cisgender person should be confronting as a neccesary step in effecting and embodying their role as an ally. it reenforces the idea that trans people are cause to rally around, a group in need of pity, a population in need of saving.


rather, are allies not more effective if they work from a place of self-reflexive questioning and awareness about the their own bias and, by extension to use their privilege to effect change in the world. is this not preferable to allies who work from a place of charity and guilt?

~b*

x-posted in transfeminism