There are a lot of things here I disagree with.

First, to get this observation out of the way:

The paragraph about being "delegitimized" is based on an erroneous use of that word (as I understand the word). Delegitimization is an objective harm, not a subjective harm, or, at least, it tends to be more objective than subjective. Someone can delegitimize me without my being aware of it. Examples: (1) John is a serious person who doesn't smile much. He claims he doesn't drink alcohol. Because of this, John's coworker thinks it's funny to joke about John staying out late partying at bars. It becomes gossip and misinformation. Next year, when the boss is deciding who to promote, he remembers having heard something about John "partying" and coming to work with a hangover, and, even though this never happened and just started as a way to tease John, John doesn't get a promotion. (2) John's neighbor knows that John is an undocumented immigrant, and the neighbor writes a letter to a political leader saying that John's petition for identity documents should be rejected and John should be kicked out of the country. (3) John is an adoptive father. His daughter's school plans a "Father-Daughter Dance." All the young girls in the class are invited to the dance, but the teacher tells John's daughter that she can't attend because she doesn't have a "real father."

All of those actions delegitimize John—as a worker, an immigrant, and a father—regardless of whether John is worried about them, has hurt feelings, or is even aware that they happened. If those things are said about him on TV and he doesn't turn on the TV, or if they are said in a language he doesn't understand, he is still delegitimized. People are essentially saying that his life isn't "real" and that he shouldn't be taken seriously or treated like a normal person. Those words affect his life. He isn't immediately harmed by the comment since he doesn't hear it, but the comment changes other people's behavior, and that behavior will *objectively* harm him downstream, even if he is never aware of the reason why he's earning less money, doesn't have an identity document, isn't invited to parties, etc. He'd be happier if he had more money, legal documents, and were seen as the father of his daughter. It may not occur to him that a different, better life is possible, but, insofar as we're imagining possibilities for him, we know that other outcomes would have made him happier. When other people's behavior deprives him of those alternative outcomes, they harm him.

So, yes, cis people's comments can delegitimize trans people even if the trans people (a) don't know the comments were made (b) hear the comment, but don't have any particular reaction (c) laugh it off.

Or, here's another way of looking at it: The AHA revoked Dawkins' award. In so doing, they *delegitimized* him as a humanist leader. Does Dawkins care? Beats me! I don't know if he's put out a statement about it. Maybe he doesn't care. Maybe he's amused. Maybe that was the outcome he hoped for. Maybe he says "good riddance." But even if he's thrilled with the outcome, the organization has nevertheless contributed to his delegitimization.

This seems to me a better verb than "cancel" or "silence," by the way, for this situation. Dawkins has hardly been silenced, but everyone who thinks of him now will remember that he has been delegitimized. This incident has chipped away at his legitimacy just a little bit.

Which may also help you to understand what it means to need one's *gender* to be perceived and treated as legitimate. Trans people are not necessarily asking to have their opinions affirmed, their reputations increased, and so on. But they need their *gender* not to be delegitimized.

Imagine if the response to Dawkins' bad tweet had focused not on his choice of words about a marginalized group of people, but rather on the legitimacy of his maleness or manhood? That would have been weird, right? Well...his bad tweet was bad precisely because it focused on the legitimacy of other people's maleness/femaleness and manhood/womanhood.

Anyway, here is my larger concern with this article:

You are saying we cannot know for sure what another human being thinks/feels/believes/intends. To some extent, yes, of course; we don't have a window into anyone else's head. I'll agree to that. But you are applying this insight very differently to cis people and trans people.

As I understand what you're saying: In the case of a cis man (Dawkins), we must apply the principle of charity. Our default should be to trust that he is well-intentioned; that he is using language according to its most established meaning; that his intuitions are reasonable; that he has either done his homework (researching the facts relevant to the debate he wants to have) or else can expect someone else to do his homework for him (because he is quizzing them on their knowledge); that he is more logical than emotional; that he is functioning within a respectable intellectual tradition; that his sex and gender are coherent to others, and that he is allowed to manage his own body and entitled to have his gender respected; etc. We are supposed to believe all these things about him until someone proves otherwise. We are also shown a nice photo of him wearing a suit. In the case of a trans person, however—by the way, no example given? can we name any trans people? this article is a meta-discussion of a discourse that treats trans people as objects of scrutiny rather than participants in discussion, and somehow there is room to write out the full n-word but not to cite a trans person's voice? just Kant, Hobbes, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris? OK, there is a Scientific American article about chromosomes that happens to be written by someone who, if you search for their personal website, indicates that they use "they" pronouns, so maybe that counts as citing a trans person, but the apparent lack of trans people overall amounts to a big and revealing omission. where is this "internet mob" of which you speak, who is in it, and what makes it a mob? why are cis men named and quoted as individuals, and trans people are a nonexistent mob?—Anyway, in the case of a trans person, no such charity is extended. Probably because they are made invisible, so it isn't clear to whom we would extend charity. I mean, in this article, there's a nice photograph of Richard Dawkins but no corresponding image to build empathy with the people about whom he was tweeting. The assumptions, which are made explicit so they are also assertions, are that the Mythical Trans Person is more emotional than logical, that their emotions are primarily negative, that they are impatient and react with a "trigger" reflex, that they aren't already extending the maximum possible charity to cis men, that they don't use language in an ordinary way, that their gender (private feelings, public presentation, or social role) is incoherent or fraudulent, that they are misinterpreting their own sex (physical characteristics), that the way they live their life unreasonably imposes on others, etc.

If the cis man makes a statement that delegitimizes trans people or harms them in other ways, the trans person (per your article) is expected to meditate stoically, sit with their feelings, and "learn" to manage their emotions (the assumption is they don't already know how to do this and do it excellently). Now the trans person has been put in a double-bind, because the cis man (and his defenders) are, at least indirectly, asking the trans person to provide lots of information. Either they want the trans person to engage in a debate about the validity of their own identity on the terms according to which the cis people have suddenly declared the debate, or else they want the trans person to explain to them why the debate should not be had on these terms. The trans person cannot simultaneously go away and meditate while also participating in the debate. If the trans person responds to the tweet, the article, etc., they are accused of "exploding" in response; but if the trans person remains silent, they are accused of not having an intellectual rebuttal at all, and the cis person declares victory.

Trans person is also expected to have lots of background knowledge about gender, to construct logical arguments or be prepared to deal with elaborate suggestions and uninformed thought experiments that cis people propose, to communicate with expertise, but also to have "epistemic humility," which, on what is admittedly the least charitable interpretation of that term, means not having confidence in their own trans expertise and being prepared to let the cis man believe he won the debate. In the first instance of that phrase, Cis Man was not asked to have "humility." Only Trans Person was. In the second instance of that phrase, it was suggested that everyone should have epistemic humility, which is better, except that it appeared alongside the request that "We must start our conversation from position of agnosticism," which for the trans person would mean *not being trans* since they can't be trans and also entirely agnostic about what it means to be trans or whether it's "valid" or "OK" to be trans. Cis Person is already agnostic (at best! more likely, just plain ignorant) of trans. Cis Person is not asked to be agnostic about being *cis*, I am pretty sure. The declared topic of discussion is not about whether to delegitimize *cis* people; it is about whether to delegitimize *trans* people. The latter is the question about which Cis and Trans participants alike are asked to be humble and agnostic. This is not only difficult, but actually impossible, for Trans Person.

Trans Person could attempt a half-measure: respond briefly (not an essay, but not silence either), with light sarcasm (not drilling into a deep well of negative emotions, but not smiling and pretending not to smell the bad smell), in an accessible, conversational, "Hmm, what do you think?" tone (not insisting on their own expertise and rightness, but not pretending not to have any opinion). This will not work. Trans Person will be "wrong" (in Cis Person's eyes) and will have "lost the argument" (that Cis Person started) no matter what they do or don't do. No matter how factually informed or emotionally balanced and gentle they are. No matter how generous they are with their time while trying to make Cis Person not feel guilty about that. There is not actually a moderate sweet spot that the trans person can hit that will satisfy the cis person. The cis person tweeted about trans people as objects of discussion; the trans person isn't really invited to the discussion, but is expected to somehow provide fuel for the fire; when they provide the fuel, they will be burned, because that's what the fire does.

The trans person can't argue about a matter in which they *do* have skin in the game while behaving as if they *don't* have skin in the game. The trans person's knowledge on the topic comes from their lived experience; therefore, feigning neutrality makes it impossible to say what actually needs to be said. It should be noted that the cis person isn't neutral, either. In tweeting something along the lines of "Who understands trans people? Not me! Trans people sure look weird to me!", the cis man revealed himself *as cis.*

Dawkins' original tweet emphasized his identity as a cis man and distanced himself from trans people. If that's the definition of "identity politics," he started it. The discourse he tried to start was pure identity politics in its worst manifestation. If you ask trans people to engage with that discourse in any way, their hands will inevitably get dirty. The blame for that should not fall on trans people. They have no way out of it nor around it, except for cis men to behave better in the first place.

While the cis man is said to be distinguished by his ability to prioritize logic over reason, his feelings are nevertheless presented as fragile, and he is coddled. He is expected to be unable to handle criticism. Criticism makes him feel embarrassed, ashamed, angry. If he has these feelings, he will lash out more. Trans people are warned: Don't offend the cis man because it's too much for him, he can't handle it, and the more unhappy he gets, the worse he'll make your lives! The cis man is expected to be irrational and bullying; he is not held accountable for these failures. The trans person is expected to have a relatively mature emotional capacity such that they can immediately see the wisdom of this appeal to their better natures, yet they are not given credit for having this extra emotional capacity; somehow, that virtue of emotional control is attributed to Dawkins instead.

Cis Man is not instructed to study Stoicism nor to engage in deep personal reflection to help him address the interpersonal problems he has stirred up. Of course, he, too, could benefit from this. After all, if the cis man knew how to manage his emotions and do his research before speaking, not only would he be able to handle criticism, but maybe he wouldn't have tweeted from the toilet with his unfounded speculations about trans people in the first place.

Here's another vortex that the trans person is sucked into: Cis man makes a harmful tweet. Trans person is prompted to explain why it is harmful. Trans person is especially prompted to explain harms (a) of which they are *consciously aware*, because how could they be explaining a harm if they weren't aware of it, and (b) based in *subjective feelings*, because, once they've identified the harm, they probably have a bad feeling about it or else it's not a harm. So, having been kicked, the trans person is asked to focus on and explain their feelings of anger, fear, frustration, shame, sadness, etc. to give a public philosophical account of the manner in which the kick harmed them. But trans person is also simultaneously being told to go away and meditate until their bad feelings go away because only they (not the cis man who kicked them) is ultimately responsible for their bad feelings. As a bonus, if they admit to having bad feelings, then—so they are told—the cis man, too, will have bad feelings of his own, and he will continue to kick them. But if they do *not* admit to having bad feelings, then they are essentially saying they haven't been harmed, which gives the cis man permission to continue to kick them, as his kicks can't hurt the Stoic.

Richard Dawkins knew what he was tweeting. He was deliberately humoring the far-right and trolling trans people. I wrote two articles on Medium explaining this:

(1) A couple thousand words about the 2015 discourse over Rachel Dolezal and the comparisons that were made to transgender identity. My aim was not so much to explain the invalidity of the comparison (since it is so very invalid that the discussion could go on forever) but rather to point out that it is, indeed, an existing discourse. Very likely, Dawkins knew about it. He didn't pull it out of thin air. At least, he knew who Rachel Dolezal was, or else he couldn't have named her. And if he had bothered to Google his question (<<Is transgender identity like "transracial" claims?>>) before tweeting it to 3 million followers—I expect nothing less from a public intellectual—he would have found the existing discourse. The argument had already occurred several years earlier. Trans people had already criticized the notion. He doesn't have to pretend to be surprised. If he were actually surprised and humble, he could admit that he ought to have Googled first. https://medium.com/p/why-did-richard-dawkins-tweet-about-rachel-dolezal-42cfacfb6fd4

(2) A much longer article, about five times that length, in which I reviewed the history of various tweets Dawkins made and interpreted them. Here, I show that Dawkins knew exactly what he was saying. He wasn't surfacing questions that arose naturally out of some pure inner space that is blameless and naive, nor was he playing monkey-on-a-typewriter and emitting meaningless strings of words. (Even if he had been, and we judged him not to have hostile intent, his tweets still wouldn't rise to a higher ethical level. They wouldn't qualify as intellectual or admirable because we would have realized that he was making stuff up.) He was being intentionally hostile or troll-ish. Insofar as we can ever determine someone's intentions, I am indeed able to determine this. https://aninjusticemag.com/how-did-richard-dawkins-undermine-transgender-people-b38dcfe1a2e7

Trans people know how to interpret cis people because we have spent our lives interpreting them. We were born into cis families, went to cis schools and cis jobs, and have navigated cis people's interpersonal and institutional hostility. When we hear the same insult, the same "Just asking questions!" that has been asked in faux innocence for our entire lives and is always tied to elaborate forms of delegitimization and bullying, we recognize it. (For an example, see the two comments that were left on my long article. See how boringly similar they are to each other. They were from two different people, but those commenters might as well have been the same person. See how I dance circles around comments like that when I feel like making time for it.)

Cis people might not know how to interpret trans people if they've never spoken to a trans person, never read a book by a trans person, can't name a trans person. But these cis people are projecting their own ignorance on others if they think that, just because *they* can only speculate about what trans people think and feel and how they might live their lives, trans people don't have a mountain of information about cis people.

There is a question in your article about who can act as a "conciliator" or a neutral "third-party" between a cis person and a trans person. I don't know if you were suggesting that you should serve as this third-party (which was my first impression) or if, by contrast, you were suggesting that Dawkins was attempting to serve as this third-party when he made a tweet deliberately trolling trans people (something so counterintuitive to me that it didn't even occur to me until days later, revisiting your article that I'd already read twice). You acknowledge that "this third-party will always have their own biases." If you dig into it more directly, the bias in question is: *The conciliator is either cis or trans.* (OK, nonbinary people exist, but it's unfair and inaccurate to characterize them as halfway between cis and trans, and they're not "neutral" in cis/trans encounters, especially as being nonbinary isn't exclusive with being cis or trans, so I'm not going to propose a nonbinary-gendered mediator as a solution. Just for simplicity, just for a moment, let's say the conciliator is either cis or trans.) Anyway, if you think cis and trans people have such trouble talking to each other to the point that they need mediators to hear and understand each other's experiences, then, given that the mediators themselves have genders, you may end up with an infinite regress of mediators who need to mediate each other. This is only half-serious. But it raises a real question: Why can't cis and trans people listen to each other *without* a mediator? I mean, many already do. I am transgender, and most of my friends and colleagues are not. I don't use mediators to talk to them. From my perspective, though, dialogue is impossible when a particular cis man with an enormous Twitter platform is choosing to troll—that is, when he doesn't want dialogue. No mediator, cis or trans, can fix that. That's his problem that he has to fix.

The question of third-party mediation raises the question of empathy, which in turn raises the question of identity in the sense of kinship or affinity. You suggested that "[Dawkins'] followers...will see him as a symbol of themselves" insofar as they presume he is naive, innocent, or ignorant-but-with-good-intentions, and that when Dawkins is criticized or faces consequences, his "followers" will also feel "personally attacked," so closely do they identify with him. (By the way, I'm not sure if you meant "followers" in the Twitter sense or the cult sense, but I will let that be.) I wonder, first of all, why they would presume his innocence and good intentions. I raised this question earlier: why this is granted to cis men. I also wonder why they—and, here, we are assuming these Dawkins sympathizers are cis people—would empathize or identify with him rather than with trans people. I mean, Dawkins is a multi-millionaire, a professor emeritus, an author of at least 17 books, a public speaker in high demand, and a Twitter influencer. He's an evolutionary biologist. He's 80. He's white. He lives in the UK. He tweets rudely. Exactly what feature does he have that makes cis people naturally identify with him, rather than with a trans person with whom they might actually have more in common, when they are given the opportunity to choose sides? If the answer is simply, "Well, he's cis," then that is a powerful lesson about how gender works. Reflecting on that alone, one can infer a lot about what it is like to live in the world as a transgender person, given the unshakeable determination of cis men to identify with each other and in opposition to trans people even when they have no real reason to ally with cis-ness aside from the perpetuation of cis-ness itself and the power it lends them.

Which is also to say that some of the answers to your questions are visible in the world and are already inside yourself, and trans people might not have to expend this much work helping you see them, because you are more than capable of getting yourself to the next level.