Trans experiences of epistemic recognition against the backdrop of the Finnish trans act reform

Epistemic injustice based on gender identity

In societies designed by and for cisgender people, trans people experience epistemic injustice based on their gender identities (Aultman, 2016; Freeman and Stewart, 2022; Fricker and Jenkins, 2017; Schey, 2022).Epistemic practices are embedded in, and mediated through, unequal power relations, which shape who is listened to or believed and why (Collins, 2000: 252). Such injustices reflect the gatekeeping function of epistemic institutions such as news media and authorities that limit trans individuals’ ability to make decisions about their own lives and bodies (Freeman and Stewart, 2022; Pearce, 2018).

Trans studies emerged in the early 1990s – as a response to the marginalization of trans individuals as knowers – to consider the embodied experience of the trans subject in the analysis of the transgender phenomena (Stryker, 2006). The aim was to break free from ‘a relationship of epistemic dependence’ in which trans people are treated as mere objects of analysis and their experiences are validated by cis authorities (Radi, 2019: 49). Such epistemic dependence is evident in the history of gender recognition processes and various gate-keeping functions of different institutions over trans lives. We argue that the epistemic injustice trans people experience cannot be divorced from the lack of self-determination and legal recognition that have shaped trans existence; yet, even as legal gender recognition processes improve, trans individuals continue to experience epistemic injustice due to prevailing hermeneutical marginalization and prejudice.

We build on Miranda Fricker’s (2007) conceptualization of two forms of epistemic injustice that harm someone’s capacity as a knower: testimonial injustice, which occurs when prejudice towards a speaker hinders the credibility of their testimony (a credibility deficit), and hermeneutical injustice, which refers to the obscuring of a marginalized group’s social experiences from collective understanding. In the case of testimonial injustice, credibility deficit caused by identity prejudice prevents marginalized groups from effectively sharing knowledge in the public domain. Subsequently, socially dominant groups can provide their own language and interpretations of marginalized experiences, which then exist as the only available hermeneutical tools to make sense of those experiences (Steele and Nicholson, 2020: 7). Therefore, hermeneutical injustice can also prevent marginalized groups from understanding their own social experiences (Fricker, 2007).

Previous research has addressed trans experiences of epistemic injustice in different social fields, particularly in healthcare, where the erasure of trans and non-binary individuals’ needs hinders their epistemic agency (Freeman and Stewart, 2022; Pearce, 2018 see also Huttunen, 2023), and in schools, where trans representation continues to be contested and erased (Schey, 2022; Steele and Nicholson, 2020). Moreover, research has highlighted the news media’s role in perpetuating trans people’s hermeneutical marginalization by continuing to sensationalize and misrepresent trans experiences (Berberick, 2018; Humphrey, 2016; Montiel-McCann, 2023). However, little scholarly attention has been given to the social impacts of demeaning public discourse for trans people.

Epistemic recognition and struggle for agency

In recent years, scholars have brought recognition theory in dialogue with epistemic injustice to better address the epistemic dimensions of structural inequalities and political struggles for recognition (e.g. Doan, 2018; Fricker, 2018; Giladi, 2018; McConkey, 2004; Medina, 2018). The denial of recognition that leads to experiences of epistemic injustice reinforces existing oppression and thus inflicts harm on one’s status as both an epistemic agent and an equal citizen (McConkey, 2004). Consequently, the concept of epistemic recognition highlights epistemic practices as central to social justice.

Epistemic recognition can be identified as ‘being neither unfairly underestimated as a giver of knowledge (no testimonial injustice) nor unfairly disadvantaged in one’s ability to share social understandings across social space (no hermeneutical injustice)’ (Fricker, 2018: 4). This follows Axel Honneth’s (1995) conceptualization that, for a healthy and secure sense of self to form, we need recognition from others. Thus, mutual epistemic recognition relies on a reciprocal relationship where our epistemic agency is recognized and nurtured and, in turn, we afford the same level of respect to others (Congdon, 2018; Fricker, 2018).

Honneth (1995: 132–133) identifies forms of ‘disrespect’ that hinder mutual recognition, of which physical abuse is the gravest as it results ‘in the loss of trust in oneself and the world’. In other words, trust is a fundamental requirement for mutual recognition (Petherbridge, 2021). Previous research, for example, demonstrates that trans individuals’ trust in their healthcare providers is severed due to the experienced denial of epistemic recognition and respect, which can leave them avoiding medical encounters (Freeman and Stewart, 2022). In line with Honneth’s theorization, the denial of epistemic recognition can also shatter an individual’s self-confidence as a knower and harm their ability to participate in public debates and activities that can bring about social change (Giladi, 2018). Therefore, we emphasize that epistemic wrongdoings do not solely operate in relation to one’s self-confidence but harm trust in epistemic institutions such as mainstream media, social groups enjoying credibility excess and authorities that facilitate such injustice.

Alternative knowledges and epistemic resistance

Fricker’s theorization of epistemic injustice follows a long line of feminist – in particular, Black feminist – scholars’ work on alternative knowledges that challenge the white ideological hegemony, which ‘makes the articulation of their self-defined standpoint difficult’ (Collins, 1989: 749). While alternative knowledge claims are routinely discredited and ignored, alternative epistemologies challenge the very process of how knowledge is legitimated by the powerful (Collins, 2000).

Trans people increasingly offer alternative interpretations that challenge the cisnormative construction of dominant hermeneutical resources (e.g. Ciszek et al., 2023; Hokkanen, 2023; Raun, 2016). Paradoxically, the increased visibility of trans claims for justice may provoke a hermeneutical backlash. The literature on trans moral panics, for example, shows that collective interpretive resources are sites of epistemic struggle (George and Goguen, 2021). Rebecca Mason (2011: 306) has critiqued Fricker’s theory of hermeneutical injustice for focusing on dominant hermeneutical resources and thus failing to recognize that ‘non-dominant hermeneutical resources’ allow marginalized people possibilities for self-articulation. She argues that hermeneutical marginalization does not necessarily leave marginalized groups unable to understand their own experiences or offer alternative interpretations; instead, their interpretations are disregarded by dominant groups.

Academic attention has turned to marginalized groups’ practices of resistance in the face of epistemic injustice (Doan, 2018; Medina, 2013, 2021; Pohlhaus, 2020). José Medina (2013) theorizes epistemic resistance in relation to structural oppression and active ignorance, challenging Fricker’s conceptualization of testimonial injustice that centres on individual moments of testimonial exchange. He argues that by focusing on cases of credibility deficit, Fricker fails to address the harms that credibility excess can inflict over time. We argue that it is vital to consider the excess credibility given to cis authorities on issues concerning trans lives because it curtails trans individuals’ self-determination and epistemic agency (Fricker and Jenkins, 2017; Radi, 2019). However, structural epistemic injustice can also force marginalized groups to coordinate efforts of epistemic resistance, which can foster their collective epistemic self-empowerment (Medina, 2021). In sum, a polarizing public debate can also foster opportunities for epistemic resistance and empowerment alongside the epistemic injustices it inflicts.

Feeling invisible in the public debate

The first theme we garnered from interviews, feeling invisible, concerns testimonial injustice in the context of the trans rights debate and the hermeneutical marginalization it tends to produce (Fricker and Jenkins, 2017: 271). The participants frequently commented on their undervaluation as experts on matters concerning their own lives, highlighting the credibility deficit trans people experience due to identity prejudice (Fricker, 2007). Participants reasoned that if trans people were truly heard in decision-making, then the Trans Act, and legislation and policies concerning trans people’s lives in general, would look different. A non-binary participant explained that the reform debate had left non-binary people feeling invisible, as their right to gender recognition was ignored:

Though I was happy that the matter is being advanced, it emphasized feelings of invisibility and powerlessness, because non-binary people were still completely invisible, as were underage trans people . . . my years’ work to get non-binary people included in this, well it didn’t come true. (Interview 31)

Concerning the public debate on the Trans Act, most of the participants felt that the voices of cisgender people – cisgender journalists, politicians and healthcare professionals – were prioritized over trans experiences. Notably, feelings of not being heard were not limited to law reform; many expressed similar frustration with trans healthcare practices and policies. This exemplifies the credibility excess of cis authorities that greatly influences both trans knowledge in the public realm and trans individuals’ access to services (e.g. Fricker and Jenkins, 2017; Huttunen, 2023; Pearce, 2018). Participants questioned what they saw as a distorted focus of the debate on cis people’s fears of the alleged consequences of the reform. Anti-reform representatives’ claims that the law reform poses a threat to cisgender women and children caused feelings of injustice. The perceived false opposition between trans rights and cis people’s fears represented lack of recognition for the participants:

They are supposedly so worried about women and children, and the arguments are at the level of ‘then women are harassed in the toilets’, although no-one has asked for an ID there before . . . I’m really frustrated with the discourse, that worn-out arguments are being used, and it’s just that they are trying to justify their own fears and discriminatory attitudes, or that’s how I feel, that we hear the voice of those who hold power. (Interview 30)

In addition, participants stressed that giving space to anti-trans viewpoints in the name of free speech is not morally justifiable because the public debate concerns their human rights:

Maybe there is an assumption in the mainstream media that there are some extreme viewpoints and if we take the middle road, it is the truth or somehow correct. So, they also bring up transphobia and anti-trans views in the name of freedom of speech. (Interview 20)

In this way, hostile public debate is seen not only to undermine trans individuals’ epistemic agency but also recognition of them as equals in society. Accordingly, participants expressed discontent with trans rights being often discussed in news media as a matter of opinion. Such media reporting was seen as a culprit of ‘false neutrality’, presenting two arguments, or sides, as if they had equal value.

Several participants shared a sentiment that the reform had increased transphobic reporting. The participants were aware that the enhanced media visibility does not mean that they are listened to or have more political power: ‘You can make noise and attract attention, even in the media, but does that improve anything? Well, no’ (Interview 3). A non-binary participant was disillusioned with the ways journalists constructed the reform as controversial also among the trans community, by specifically seeking to interview trans individuals who reinforced objections to the proposed gender self-determination: ‘If they wanted, for example, views from trans people who somehow oppose this law or regret their transition, or something else . . . they looked for people who, for example, have spoken about their detransition’ (Interview 24). Participants alluded to hermeneutical marginalization by discussing prevailing lack of knowledge on trans experiences, which they often attributed to active ignorance (Medina, 2013). Journalists were seen to lack understanding of the Trans Act and, more generally, knowledge of important matters, such as healthcare, concerning trans people. As one participant, a journalist, noted: ‘Knowledge of these issues is not considered a [journalistic] skill in the same way as, for example, someone is expected to have the facts about sports or economics’ (Interview 12). This led, according to several respondents, to factually incorrect and misleading information. The controversy about extending the legal gender recognition to underage trans people was often mentioned as an example of a misrepresented issue, as legal gender recognition was often connected to gender affirming surgeries: ‘Ignoring young people’s right to self-determination. . . which is related to the media [where] it is often confused with whether minors should have surgical treatments, which is not related’ (Interview 8). Another participant described this type of coverage as a deliberate attempt to create sensationalized stories:

The media uses wrong terms, misleading perspectives in a very othering manner for sensationalized stories, perhaps looking for clicks. Objectifying trans people. They deliberately confuse medical transition [and] legal gender, discussing the Trans Act with wrong information. (Interview 3)

The examples above demonstrate the excess of epistemic authority (Medina, 2013) given to cisgender authorities in the media, which further obscures trans voices from being heard – or, it gives journalists the editorial-say on the arguments trans people are allowed to raise.

Hermeneutical marginalization has a profound impact on trans individuals’ everyday lives. The public debate on the law reform made evident to most of the participants the lack of information about trans experiences in Finnish society. They explained how almost every aspect of their lives, including their own understanding of their gender identity, had been impacted by the invisibility of trans experiences. Many described having to educate healthcare professionals, teachers, work colleagues, relatives and friends about their experiences and needs, which was sometimes met with suspicion, demonstrating the lack of epistemic agency and respect trans people are afforded in different areas of their lives (Freeman and Stewart, 2022; Huttunen, 2023; Pearce, 2018; Schey, 2022; Steele and Nicholson, 2020). Ignorance about trans identities and experiences predispose trans people to discrimination: ‘The lack of knowledge, it doesn’t show up only in the fact that you haven’t found that information yourself and your own identity, but perhaps also in how you are treated in everyday life’ (Interview 24). Therefore, a lack of epistemic recognition can have a negative impact on trans individuals’ social lives and their ability to participate in public discourse, which we will discuss next.

Feeling unsafe: severed trust in the self and others

A key theme that arose from discussions with participants was the public debate’s impact on experiences of safety and trust. The denial of recognition impacts all social relations because such disrespect destroys trust in the self and in others (Honneth, 1995). In other words, mutual recognition requires being open to the world and to others and, therefore, cannot come to fruition without trust (Petherbridge, 2021). The denial of epistemic recognition participants had experienced during the Trans Act debate – which left most of them feeling disappointed and angry – severed their social trust. Perhaps the most serious implication of the injury to their social trust, caused by the hostile and othering discourse both in mainstream media and in the online media platforms, was a decreased sense of safety:

This spring [2023] has been the first time I have had a panic attack when I’m about to go outside. Like you go in front of a mirror and look at yourself . . . or panic about your outfit, like ‘am I dressed normal?’ and ‘is this somehow weird?’ (Interview 23)

The above example demonstrates the complexity of trans visibility, which is necessary for greater trans recognition but, at an individual level, can put trans individuals at a greater risk of victimization (Colliver and Silvestri, 2022; Wundram Pimentel and Leonardo Segura, 2018). Some participants had recently been victims of hate crimes, while others said that they had experienced transphobic harassment consistently for years and that the Trans Act debate did not have an impact on that. The divisive public debate had made several participants more cautious about sharing their trans identity or correcting people if they were misgendered, and some had made their social media profiles private. One participant explained that they were personally attacked on social media, which increased the emotional toll of the public discourse:

There was a lot of frustration, sadness, disappointment, and insults, and then I, for example, was the target of defamation amidst the debate. People spoke in ways that I don’t think anyone would talk to someone if it was about something else. There was a lot of othering . . . and they don’t understand that all the hate you discuss, we read it, we see it. This concerns our lives and not yours. (Interview 24)

The public debate also affected participants’ trust in their close relationships and home lives. One participant, who had rebuilt a relationship with his father, who had previously disowned him for being trans, spoke about his worry of the public debate influencing his father’s views on the matter and, therefore, ruining their new-found relationship.

The denial of epistemic recognition and respect had a negative impact on participants’ self-trust and confidence as activists. Participants found it hard not to internalize the transphobia in public discourse; as one participant explained: ‘I’ve sometimes thought, “is there something wrong with me because people think like this?’’’ (Interview 19). Some participants started to doubt their ability to participate in the public debate because they felt that trans perspectives and knowledge based on their lived experiences were not recognized or respected:

It’s easy to talk about it like, ‘I feel like this’, but if someone interviewed me for the news, how do you make yourself sound convincing? Like ‘hey, you should take me seriously as an expert’. Somehow it feels like knowledge from experiences is just silly. (Interview 21)

Media had a major role in participants’ accounts; many had stopped following the Trans Act reform debate on social and mainstream media to protect their mental wellbeing. While some had taken breaks from following news or they read only updates from trans activists and organizations on social media, others had completely stopped following news on the law reform. Several participants had lost trust in the news media and questioned the divisive and sensationalized reporting on the law reform: ‘Somehow this Trans Act was the last straw in terms of the credibility of Helsingin Sanomat [the largest subscription newspaper in Finland] for me. Helsingin Sanomat and Ilta-Sanomat [a tabloid paper] . . . it turned out are junk newspapers’ (Interview 29).

Distrust was connected to the perceived indifference of the news media towards transphobic hate speech in online comment sections. One participant described this as a tendency to prioritize maximum visibility for articles over the safety of trans readers: ‘I’m worried about the lack of action taken to stop and moderate hate speech, so they are thinking about the clicks first because all the chat under [the articles] increases visibility’ (Interview 31). In this way, the public discourse had a profound impact on participants’ trust in their everyday social encounters but also on their trust in epistemic institutions. However, the increased visibility of trans justice claims also had positive implications for the participants’ epistemic agency, which we consider next.

Counter-hegemonic trans knowledges and practices as epistemic resistance

The Trans Act debate provided trans people opportunities to resist testimonial injustice; many participants had given interviews, written blogposts and even participated in documentaries. Some believed that the media was starting to give voice to a more diverse representation of the trans community. They noted that trans people from LGBTIQ organizations were interviewed as experts on the Trans Act reform and thus trans perspectives and epistemic agency were also recognized. A few participants had also witnessed a positive change in their lives, as cisgender people were more open to learn from trans individuals:

The fact that these things have been talked about means that I have met a lot of people who have come to talk to me more bravely . . . or started to think about how they speak . . . maybe it has even increased openness to it, that people dare to ask and look for information and have realized they lack a lot of information. (Interview 24)

Increased public interest was acknowledged to have contributed to the public awareness about issues relating to trans rights and recognition. Several participants felt that trans people were being considered in the public realm for the first time: ‘It was lovely to see how your own community rose very loudly to protect their own rights and were very visible, and that trans people got also a lot of positive media space’ (Interview 24). Previous research supports these participants’ perspective, highlighting the opportunities LGBTIQ rights campaigns can provide for sexual and gender minority individuals to find hope and to feel empowered through personal and collective actions (Casey et al., 2023; Riggle et al., 2018).

While participants discussed at length the lack of trans voices and trans knowledge in Finnish society, they also highlighted alternative information resources that they access mainly through LGBTIQ organizations. They noted an increased representation of trans experiences, as well as knowledge produced by trans people, on social media. Several participants named peer support facilitated by LGBTIQ organizations (in person or digitally, for example on Discord) as a major source of social support and vital information on trans experiences. These non-dominant hermeneutical resources (Mason, 2011) offered participants opportunities to find trans knowledge and to share their own experiences on important matters such as the legal gender recognition process.

Several participants suggested that being visible as a trans person in everyday life is a way to resist a lack of epistemic recognition in public discourse. They actively discussed trans rights and experiences in everyday encounters, for example, at work or in education – demonstrating that visibility can be deployed as a form of resistance to hermeneutical marginalization. One non-binary participant spoke about the importance of increasing awareness of trans experiences in schools, where they work as a teacher:

I have rainbow flags in class, and I’ve seen that students react to them in different ways. So, it’s really important that I’m visible and that LGBTIQ matters are being discussed . . . and then in the staff room for teachers, once I have evaluated what the atmosphere is like, like ‘can I speak here?’, then I will usually say, ‘do we have those gender-neutral toilets?’ and, ‘so, I am not cisgender’. (Interview 21)

This demonstrates that trans struggles for epistemic recognition are not rendered visible solely through law reforms or the associated public debates, as they come to surface in the mundane encounters of daily life. The Trans Act debate led many participants to take direct action, such as emailing journalists who had published incorrect information, or contacting politicians to demand that the law be reformed. Others took part in demonstrations or were actively involved in the work of trans organizations. Thus, the public debate inspired direct action and political organizing alongside epistemic resistance concerned with everyday practices of community care and trans knowledge production.