When "No" Is a Complete Sentence: Why We Need to Stop Platforming Bigotry

Well hello there folks. I missed last week’s publication date and did not notice it until now. Truth be told, and as I am sure you all are well aware, things have been getting particularly harsh for trans folks - particularly online. I have not been able to find my own path to navigate it all while maintaining my writing schedule. My article on Sasha Ayad’s fifth video was mostly polished in advance, but I have been keeping myself mostly offline and removed from the rhetoric. It has been rough. To make matters worse, the “respectability brigade” is also out in greater force, and that is just exhausting; perhaps even more so than the anti-trans rhetoric. Nothing is won, no advances are made, by making concessions and sacrificing some rights in hopes we get to keep others. This. does. not. work. It just makes it easier for them to take more.

The respectability brigade tells us to be patient, to be palatable, to sacrifice the most vulnerable among us for the possibility of conditional acceptance. But conditional acceptance is not acceptance at all - it is a stay of execution. History teaches us that liberation comes not through compromise but through uncompromising insistence on full humanity. To do otherwise is to become what de Beauvoir called “accomplices to our own degradation.”

Things have been weighing on my mind as of late, so please accept my apologies for missing the Friday release. That article, which I entitled “Part 5: The Capital ‘T’ Truth About Lowercase Bigotry: How Ayad Pathologizes Trans Identity” will be out tomorrow at the usual time. I would have released it today but this little note ended up so long that I decided to publish this as its own thing today and not spam your inboxes with two walls of text. I have one more piece to complete this initial series, which should be available this Friday (October 11th, 2025). I do not know if I will continue deconstructing all her videos this way. Maybe I will pick and choose from the most egregious offenders, I am not sure yet.

That said, once published, I believe I will be taking a hiatus from publishing for a little while. Perhaps I can finally finish the essay series I have been working on regarding a strategy for coalition building and a path forward for real, positive, and effective change for not just trans folks, but for everyone that intersects with trans folks.

My major block on making progress there is getting pulled into all the noise and tragedy surrounding me in the news. I struggle to maintain focus with a clear mind, and not give in to the disheartened feelings and despair I experience when dealing with the anti-trans efforts and rhetoric out there. The little voice that demands I satisfy its queries, prove that what I write will help move the needle any. Demands I answer how my words, from an anonymous, insignificant human being, with a voice such as mine, will be heard over the reverberating shouts of hate and fear. What good will come from my efforts here?

And then I think of Baldwin, who had to leave America for France to write - not because he lacked courage, but because he needed to exist somewhere he was not constantly forced to navigate violence, somewhere he was just another person rather than a walking target. He needed space where his humanity was assumed, not debated. Only then could he create rather than merely defend.

These past three weeks have been a harsh reminder that no one changes their mind from online discourse and debate. And perhaps more importantly: that the exhaustion is the point. They want us defending instead of building.

I know this. You know this. I think most people recognize this. I try to remind myself that I do not write these pieces to change the hearts and minds of bigots, as that is a lost cause.

I suppose that is the trap of the liberal imagination - the belief that reason alone can dissolve prejudice, that if we simply explain ourselves clearly enough, hatred will evaporate like the morning dew. But hatred is not a misunderstanding. It is a choice, actively renewed each day, to see another human being as less than human. You cannot argue someone out of a choice they find profitable.

So I remind myself that I do this for those who want or need to debate these issues with their family, friends, or even professionally. To show the next trans person who is not yet out that we are here, working, demonstrating as best we can that facts, love, compassion, and understanding ultimately prevail. That these bigots, for as loud and oppressive as they sound, are not the majority.

And when it comes to those bigots, we really should be choosing far more wisely what merits debate and response, rather than feeling compelled to challenge every dissenting view. I too, have become consumed by this impulse - but it is foolhardy. In doing so, we inadvertently elevate their outrageous positions and claims to something worth consideration. They are not.

We should not be debating our existence. We exist - end of debate. We should not be debating human rights. All human beings deserve equality and equity - end of debate. When people state “being trans is a mental illness” or “is not real,” or that trans folks are somehow some dangerous threat, we should not engage beyond dropping facts with citations, then ignoring, muting, or blocking them. The facts? Those are for the next reader. The mute/ignore/block? That is because their position is ridiculous and not debate-worthy, and we should not inadvertently provide them a platform that legitimizes their stance as worthy of consideration.

Consider Bill Nye’s takedown of creationism - a masterclass in scientific debate. I admire what Bill Nye accomplished there. But the outcome was not millions leaving religion for atheism. It was millions joining churches and funding them because “look, this guy put our religion on equal ground with science.” Mr. Nye received well-deserved applause and accolades. He performed brilliantly! But did this win hearts and minds to reason, logic, and science? Some, certainly. Compared to the revenue generated for churches? No comparison. The churches profited in both money and recruits.

Before that debate, creationism and intelligent design were not even on the same stage as evolution and science. Yes, Mr. Nye thoroughly refuted every claim. But it legitimized his opponent’s position as “worthy of debate.” That was the real loss. The debate itself was the victory - they did not need to win the argument, they just needed the stage.

The “trans debate” has followed a similar trajectory. The “no debate” idea was sound policy from GLAAD but its implementation entirely missed the mark. Instead of shutting down all discussion, it should have pivoted to aspects of policy and care that ARE worth debating. It should have clarified in each instance that we don’t debate if “trans people exist?” - that is obvious. Instead, bring up something valid: “What does acceptable and inclusive healthcare look like?” We don’t debate if “trans people are all mentally ill” - that is demonstrably false. We should counter instead with “What does equity for trans people look like in (healthcare or education or employment) to you?” And if someone remains fixated on “debate me on your existence, bro,” then you owe them neither debate nor platform for their ridiculous position. I use my “No” spray bottle image as my response online and then I block and move on.

Because sometimes we need reminding that “No” is not only a complete sentence, but it is something more than just that.

When various Klan members wanted to debate during the civil rights era, they were not platformed on the news or given national podiums to debate civil rights leaders. The Klan was not defeated through debate but through refusal - a refusal to platform them, a refusal to engage their premises, a refusal to treat their hatred as a legitimate political position. They were pushed back into the shadows not through superior argumentation but through collective rejection of their right to public discourse. People did not entertain their ideas; they were relegated to dark corners where only those already bigoted sought similar company.

But now, in this digital age, every shadow has been illuminated, every dark corner given a megaphone. The question is not how to win the debate but how to refuse it altogether. When someone demands you debate your existence, the revolutionary act is not to marshal your evidence, but to deny them the stage entirely. “No” is not just a complete sentence - it is an assertion of your fundamental worth independent of their recognition.

They want to debate coverage for trans folks who need transition-related care? What care should be covered? Great! Debate and discuss! They want to debate whether trans people exist, or claim we are mentally ill and delusional? No. They can shout that into their echo chambers and listen to their fellow bigots respond. We need not entertain it, we need not listen to it. We have the power to block and move on.

The personal is where transformation happens, not in the abstract battlefield of online discourse. Studies confirm what we have always known: people change through relationship, through proximity to those they have othered, through the uncomfortable recognition that the stranger is their child, their sibling, their neighbor, their friend. The random bigot online will not be converted by your carefully footnoted rebuttal. But your cousin might be reached. Your coworker might be moved. Your parent or child might finally see you.

This is not surrender; it is strategy. Every moment spent legitimizing bad faith actors is a moment stolen from building genuine coalition, from supporting those still finding their voice, from creating the world we insist is possible. The oppressor wants you exhausted, wants you defending instead of building, wants you so consumed with proving you deserve to exist that you never get around to actually living.

And through it all, there is a particular violence and cruelty in being forced to debate one’s humanity, but there is power in refusal. Not the passive refusal of silence but the active refusal of redirection after stating “no”: “We are not discussing whether I exist. We are discussing what healthcare looks like because I exist.” “We are not debating my sanity. We are discussing workplace equity.” This is not avoidance - it is insistence on engaging only on terms that acknowledge our fundamental dignity and humanity.

So I offer you this: Your exhaustion is not weakness. Your refusal to engage bad faith is not cowardice. Your insistence on your own worth is not arrogance. It is the most radical act available to us - the absolute refusal to participate in our own dehumanization.

This will not solve the underlying problem; trust me, I know. What I have learned the hard way, again, over these past three weeks: you and I cannot solve this problem through any online means. Online interactions will not solve this. Personal discussion and action will. More so the acts of solidarity across intersectional lines.

The random stranger picking fights in stores? Stand up for yourself, but recognize you are unlikely to reach them, even though the face-to-face odds of doing so are better. Drop your facts and pose a critical question, and walk away. Plant seeds and hope they flourish.

Save your energy for people you are most likely to reach. Focus on building the world we know is possible rather than endlessly defending our right to exist in it.

Take care of yourselves and each other.

You are seen, you are loved, you are worth it.

PITT