We could all learn a thing about debunking anti-trans myths from Big Brother’s Sam

Trans journalist Amelia Hansford explains how Big Brother contestant Sam’s politely assertive approach to debunking anti-trans myths is a technique we could all do with learning.

Every trans person has been there; you’re at a family gathering when one of your relatives, out of ignorance rather than malice, repeats a transphobic myth they first heard from some spurious source online.

Okay, deep breaths, people. I get it, it’s beyond tiring how much trans people have to defend ourselves in the era of unabashed transphobic misinformation. In a perfect world, your loved ones wouldn’t be putting you in such an awkward position, but here we are. It’s shit, but let’s suck it up and change some minds.

There’s no simple answer to the age-old question that has plagued generations of post-suburbanite young adults visiting their families: ‘How do I convince my relatives they’re wrong?’ Whether its the disapproval of a new sapphic tattoo or spouting a bigoted myth during dinner, approaching the right way to pull your relatives back from the brink of the gender-critical void can feel like climbing a mountain.

Thankfully, Big Brother contestant Sam just provided an amazing framework on how to approach the nail-biting act of calling out your loved ones. During a 1 October episode of the reality TV show, the 27-year-old had a friendly conversation with parish councillor and fellow contestant George.

After discussing a variety of subjects like drag and gender identity, George began parroting right-wing talking points about so-called gender “ideology” that he said is preying on “vulnerable minds, like children,” which he said was based on something he heard about children undergoing “irreversible” gender-affirming surgeries.

“Kids are not walking into hospitals and walking out with a vaginoplasty”

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first. George is wrong. There is no concerted “ideology” attempting to ‘trans’ children and, I can assure you as someone who has been on the waiting list for bottom surgery for nine years, kids are not walking into hospitals with concerns over their gender and walking out with a vaginoplasty. It’s simply not happening.

Sam quickly shut down George’s claims, telling him the very real fact that it is illegal to perform any kind of gender-affirming surgeries on under-18s, adding that puberty blockers, which were given to trans youth before professional wet-wipe Wes Streeting banned them, are reversible.

It was a tense bit of television, as these conversations always are. But what Sam proved is that these kinds of claims, which are knocked around so often by the uninformed public, can be debunked through polite assertiveness and, most importantly, facts.

This is an excellent foundation to learn from, should you ever find yourself in a similar situation. First, provide simple, easy-to-understand facts. Next, use those facts to dismantle the misinformation propping up the transphobic claim. Finally, use your own lived experience to seal the deal and move on.

Notice the pattern Sam’s response to George took; they began by stating the facts – it is illegal for under-18s to undergo trans surgeries, and puberty blockers have been banned – next, they used those facts to dismantle the claim – because of the law, trans kids can’t get surgeries and are put under intense medical scrutiny to get a gender dysphoria diagnosis – and, finally, they sprinkled in an element of lived experience – Sam is aware of this misinformation because of their gender identity. It’s perfect. No notes.

Now, there are two important caveats here. Firstly, Sam and George were engaging in a polite conversation even after George mentioned the anti-trans myth.

Not everyone is going to be this polite and they’e much less likely to be if they’re openly expressing anti-trans claims. Keep your safety a priority and read the situation before you enter into a conversation – you’re far more likely to get somewhere if it’s a claim expressed through naivety rather than malice.

Secondly, as convincingly respectful as Sam’s response was, we don’t know whether George still believes in what he said. Your attempt to reason with your loved ones should be about confronting how this kind of rhetoric can impact you and those you care about. If they fail to see that, then don’t waste your energy any further.

Remember, you don’t owe anyone an explanation of your identity.

Bigotry is a tough thing to grapple with because it’s so complex. It’s not all Nazis wielding tiki torches or politicians seeking out the racist vote. Bigoted actions don’t have to be intentional or malicious to still be bigoted. After all, the majority of bigots, even those who are far gone enough to start actively attacking those they are prejudiced against, still don’t think they’re bigots.

A huge proportion of people in this country, many of whom are likely people you care about, have grown up without doing the work of confronting their own subconscious prejudices. They have been raised in a society built on misogyny and racism, and, as much as they profess otherwise, it affects them. It affects all of us whether we like it or not.

But now that this underlying prejudice is getting louder, it’s becoming more difficult to avoid the UK’s treatment of marginalised people. When your loved ones falsely claim trans women have an advantage in sports or that giving puberty blockers to under-18s is wrong, it’s because the world is forcing them to confront the hard questions, and they aren’t doing the work.

When I speak to those I love about things they say, it’s out of love. I care deeply about my family, and on the rare occasions when I hear them parrot deeply hateful things, it breaks my heart, but it’s also a chance to tell them the truth of my and so many others lived experience. If I can help stop that ignorance from becoming unfettered hatred, then every awkward conversation is worth it.