A transfeminist critique of unconditional deliberationism in science and politics

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increase in the visibility of trans people. Although this gain in visibility has allowed greater recognition of the problems suffered by this community, it has also generated disagreements in the public sphere between trans activists and trans-exclusionary positions. These controversies have given rise to strong communication breakdowns between both sectors. In this context deliberation has been invoked as the only mechanism capable of managing and resolving this set of controversies. However, some supporters of deliberation have paid insufficient attention to the asymmetries underlying these disagreements, leading to what is here characterized as unconditional deliberationism. My goal in this paper is to show under what scenarios a deliberative exercise can be successful. As will be shown, the current state of the discussion is not ideal for such an exercise; if our hopes are placed on argumentation, it is necessary to dismantle the marginalization suffered by trans communities in order to prevent the collapse of the deliberative exercise into a mere simulacrum.